Star ratings- relative to the area or not?

It seems to me that some people give star ratings relative to all the other climbs they've been on, and some decide relative to the specific crag. What if we always did it relative to the crag, and then gave the crags star ratings as well? Thoughts?

Somewhat relative. The best route in a choss pile might still be choss, and doesn't deserve 4 stars. The worst route in an amazing wall of splitter granite cracks might have a little vegetation in one spot but that doesn't make it a bomb. 4 stars should be routes that would be amazing anywhere. Bombs should be awful, period. Meh in Rock Creek is... well... meh. That doesn't change if you put it somewhere else. The 2-3 star ratings are where things are a little trickier. A route that might be 2 stars in Bishop because of some choss but it has good movement and is mostly pretty solid would likely be 3 stars on the Seward Highway. 

Micah, I have thought about the same thing. I tend to rate mostly relative to other climbs in that area, with the knowledge that something I give 3 stars in a non-destination area with short routes, I know I might only give 2 stars in Yosemite Valley. 

Definitely.

IMO definitely local. The star rating should give advice about what climbs to try if you visit a local area. If you're trying to decide whether you should climb at Indian Creek or Hueco Tanks based on comparative star ratings, you're not the sharpest cookie in the cutter. 

Four stars should be reserved for a climb that is unforgettable. A truly outstanding experience. If an area doesn't have any four star climbs, so be it. So, I don't see it as a local thing at all. If you go climbing at a crag that isn't the best, how can you say a route is four stars? Some areas are littered with four star climbs, others have none. Giving the best route on a crappy cliff four stars is like giving the best wine from New York State 95 points because it's the best of a crummy lot.

Tim Brattenwrote:

...you're not the sharpest cookie in the cutter. 

You hit the head on the nail right there! 

Giving crags their own star rating isn’t a bad idea IMO.

From what I’ve seen, most people tend to grade routes relative to that area. Not saying that’s how it’s intended to be, just for the most part, how it is. Giving the area a rating based on other areas around might help clear that fog. Grades are incredibly subjective, no matter how you critique and define them. 

Salamanizer Skiwrote:

Giving crags their own star rating isn’t a bad idea IMO.

The old Tim Toula Rock and Road book (both author and title could be wrong!) had star ratings for entire areas. Because that was a whole US road trip book, it was meant to help people choose how to spend their time in any particular state. Or at least help people manage their expectations. 

Sadly star ratings are local.  I wish the star ratings were global but most climbers do not have the context to compare climbs outside their local area and certainly most don't have the experience to rate globally.  

Relative to the area, same as grading usually sorts out. But, still, bombs are bombs, and four stars should be something worth the bother.

I am impressed that Bingham really was restrained in his City of Rocks guidebook with four stars. MP has been more generous! That, gives you a better idea crag to crag, maybe, the consensus stuff on here? Reading the comments helps loads, too.

When a route has hundreds of ticks, or three? Makes a big difference. Someplace no one bothers going to may still have some okay climbing. Digging deeper, and looking past stars, might net fun climbing, wherever you are!

Best, Helen

Fisher Towers, Description - The rock is also covered with a thick layer of mud, which makes the climbing dirty, loose, difficult, and sometimes very dangerous. 4 STARS!

Any Desert Route Put Up Far From Moab, Description -The rock is also covered with a thick layer of mud, which makes the climbing dirty, loose, difficult, and sometimes very dangerous.1 STAR:-(

I have pondered this question extensively as I document here on MP. Giving a difficulty grade and a star rating is something that perplexes me. When I documented our bouldering area https://www.mountainproject.com/area/112172291/big-water-boulders, comprised of sandstone that tends to be dusty/crumbly, we stared the problems as we personally felt about them and not for what we thought others would feel about them. We absolutely love the 4 star lines at the area and enjoy a bit of dusty salt in our soup but a snob from a destination area might think it was 2stars; because of the dust and also because their posse didn't tell them to think it was great. Hence my example above,  A lot of where a star rating comes from is who is commenting on the climb and what style and what aesthetic that they are looking for in a climb.  One persons choss is another's treasure.   So when I did my next area, https://www.mountainproject.com/area/116685072/buckskin-gulch we did our star ratings according to what we thought the folks from the established areas would think of the climbs and in comparison to the classics that we have climbed elsewhere, and with that, a 4 star rating would be impossible.  Even though we think some of them are. I don't know which is correct?   

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

Long Island and upstate actually produces some incredible wines. 

Willamette valley grades? Pinots to die for? Really?

Kyran Keislingwrote:

Fisher Towers, Description - The rock is also covered with a thick layer of mud, which makes the climbing dirty, loose, difficult, and sometimes very dangerous. 4 STARS!

Any Desert Route Put Up Far From Moab, Description -The rock is also covered with a thick layer of mud, which makes the climbing dirty, loose, difficult, and sometimes very dangerous.1 STAR:-(

I have pondered this question extensively as I document here on MP. Giving a difficulty grade and a star rating is something that perplexes me. When I documented our bouldering area https://www.mountainproject.com/area/112172291/big-water-boulders, comprised of sandstone that tends to be dusty/crumbly, we stared the problems as we personally felt about them and not for what we thought others would feel about them. We absolutely love the 4 star lines at the area and enjoy a bit of dusty salt in our soup but a snob from a destination area might think it was 2stars; because of the dust and also because their posse didn't tell them to think it was great. Hence my example above,  A lot of where a star rating comes from is who is commenting on the climb and what style and what aesthetic that they are looking for in a climb.  One persons choss is another's treasure.   So when I did my next area, https://www.mountainproject.com/area/116685072/buckskin-gulch we did our star ratings according to what we thought the folks from the established areas would think of the climbs and in comparison to the classics that we have climbed elsewhere, and with that, a 4 star rating would be impossible.  Even though we think some of them are. I don't know which is correct?   

Nobody does. But I liked reading your post. 

Kyran Keislingwrote:

We absolutely love the 4 star lines at the area and enjoy a bit of dusty salt in our soup but a snob from a destination area might think it was 2stars; because of the dust and also because their posse didn't tell them to think it was great. 

I've also struggled with this. Of the over 400 boulder problems I've developed, I'm well aware that none of them are truly "world class". Yet I'm not sure that there is any utility in making the comparison. I feel like most folks use mountain project for gathering information for smaller trips or trips to places that don't have a guidebook, like when you visit family and want to get a few laps in at the local crag. If it's a trip that matters you'd buy the guidebook. 

For that reason, when I rate climbs on this site, I've settled on doing so relative to the greater region. For my home crags I try to think, if you're in Northern Michigan for a weekend is this a must-do climb, a climb that is locally classic and has multiple redeeming qualities, a climb that you might consider doing if you're already at the crag, or a climb that's there but probably not worth the time for someone passing through? 

I'm curious how other developers navigate this.

-Will

I feel that Stars should be given to the local area (crag). What is really great at Malibu won’t even get mentioned at Boux.
Think of crags like planets- Saturn is nice, sort of crumbling but nevertheless good stuff- Earth on the other hand, is mostly golden granite- nothing crumbling at all and it’s mostly at the perfect angle and the temperature is perfect.
Or put another way. Long Island, Connect grows grapes and makes wine- it’s pretty good, I like it- grows on you. Napa, CA grows grapes, makes wine- the entire world flocks there and they fight for the honor of paying $100/bottle….. 

star ratings should be global, and posters should be realistic about the quality of the route they are posting.

slimwrote:

star ratings should be global, and posters should be realistic about the quality of the route they are posting.

They should be, but they never will be. Most climbers don’t have the experience to grade things globally, so they grade them based on the sphere they climb in.
Which is fine I guess. Picking out the best routes in an area is ultimately what you’re after anyway. If crags themselves got star ratings, then I think it would put some of those route star ratings into a better perspective. If an area with two stars has 30 four star routes, then you know to take that with a grain of salt. 

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

Long Island and upstate actually produces some incredible wines. 

Yeah, and there's some really good bouldering in Ohio.

I rate climbs based of all the other climbs I've ever done. That way, when I go back to an area, I know how much I liked it or not, not just whether it's the best route at that specific crag or not. I can keep track of my favorite routes more easily, and don't have to be like 'oh yeah well i gave thatone tree stars, but this one star route at another crag is actually much better. I don't like the idea of rating based on just the crag - I've been to places where I've though every route should be 1 star or bomb, and others where they're all 3 or 4 stars. Also I remember a guidebook once that said something like 'don't let the stars ward you off - even 1 and two stars climbs at this area would be classics at almost any other crag' - which is the opposite. But for a guide book for a specific area I think it makes some sense. But not for the global MP ratings..

The most common use case for the star rating system is your friend recommends you do a route. You do that route, well now you wanna jump on another route. Well you look at the star ratings of the routes around, if every route is 4 stars or a bomb the entire system is useless. 

Also if you need to see a route listed as 4 stars on mountain project to tell you what a world class route is, maybe you don't even know   .

To Kris's point, if someone showed me a wine menu and said all their wines are two star would that be helpful, or is the best to know which wine is the best in that scenario?

Also mountain project should create a 5-star function where routes with an average rating above 3.75 get a 5 star in the database.