FA Quality Ratings Don't Count.

Everyone loves their own baby but I suppose a consensus has to start somewhere.

I propose an unwritten rule wherein the FA does not quality rate their climb.

In theory, I agree. However, routes I put up tend to have somewhat long approaches. Without a little 4 star nudge, they’d get done less than they already do. My hands are tied.

Edit - this is more generally true as well. Even at a popular crag, it’s important to get them seen. But I guess the right thing to do is delete my star ratings for routes that have been done, as pointed out below. Letting the bird out of the nest to fly on its own I suppose );

The Quality Rating is required when adding a new route if I remember correctly. 

A simple solution.  Instead of navy blue stars, new routes or those with limited number of votes (<5?) would get light blue stars or something to quickly show that opinions are few because the climb hasn't been done much.  This would show that they are not "classics", at least not just yet.  It would also be convenient, when scanning through a lengthy route list for a crag or area.

Anna Brownwrote:

The Quality Rating is required when adding a new route if I remember correctly. 

Correct but one can go back and delete the stars after posting.

^^Not bad idea George!

George Perkinswrote:

A simple solution.  Instead of navy blue stars, new routes or those with limited number of votes (<5?) would get light blue stars or something to quickly show that opinions are few because the climb hasn't been done much.  This would show that they are not "classics", at least not just yet.  It would also be convenient, when scanning through a lengthy route list for a crag or area.

Also for grades.

Tradiban I think this is really just another version of my FA’s shouldn’t write guidebooks!

Both Anna and Brian are correct which is why I delete my star ratings after the routes have a couple

Some UK guidebook descriptions have a crucifix shaped symbol to indicate grade etc may be inaccurate since there are no known repeat ascents..

Crowd sourced quality ratings are notoriously inaccurate as well. Of course, all my FAs were carefully selected to be of the utmost quality.

in my experience if you take the FA star ratings and subtract 2, it is usually pretty accurate.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

Also for grades.

Tradiban I think this is really just another version of my FA’s shouldn’t write guidebooks!

Maybe, but your posts are too long so I wouldn't know.

I think it's important for a first ascentionist to learn how to be objective about the quality of their own routes. I have a spreadsheet and a method to determine what makes a route high quality for both boulders and routes. Not saying it's perfect, but it's better than not having any method at all.

Will C wrote:

...instead of this ad hoc system where every gym climber and their mother feel qualified to provide input.

This is Colorado in a nutshell.

I think some can be objective. Heck, I've done routes that I haven't written up because I didn't believe they were worth doing. 

So far as four stars are concerned, lowball it every time. If you think you've got a four star route, give it three. It's far nicer to see it get bumped up than down over time.

Mark Thesingwrote:

I think some can be objective. Heck, I've done routes that I haven't written up because I didn't believe they were worth doing. 

Woops, meant to say objective, not subjective. Edited my comment

I think you have to use the stars to direct people. If you have 5 new climbs  that are only really a star difference in quality, I would still rate them bomb to 4 star just so people know what they should jump on.

Maybe the FA postings should just be a collection of American Flags, pot leaves, and porn star outlines.  

Developer goggles are real.