Suggestion: addition of "Did not finish" "Style" option

UKClimbing has a "did not finish" option for ticks. Mountain project should adopt something similar. Seems like it should be easy to add this to the "style" options (solo, TR, follow, lead, etc.) when ticking a route. It can be nice to keep track of volume climbed for training purposes but at the same time claiming to have "ticked" a route that you didn't complete seems problematic. Having a "did not finish" option allows one to monitor training volume without giving future prospective partners any misleading impression of climbing experience.

UKClimbing lists routes you hung on in gray to make it clearly distinguished from sent routes. This might be harder to implement on MP, but if it's not too much trouble displaying "did not finish" routes in a different font or style, similar to how UKC lists dogged routes, might also be a good idea. See here for some examples of what I'm talking about:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/showlog.php?id=180348

EDIT: This topic was already addressed and dismissed a month ago:
https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/123645834/suggestion-add-bailed-or-attempt-as-option-for-climb-ticks

TL;DR: The argument seems to be that extra options won't fit neatly on a phone screen and that MPs ticklist should be a ticklist not a personal log book.

I agree. Or maybe “attempt” or something like that.

This already exists….. There is a “fell/hung” option. 

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

This already exists….. There is a “fell/hung” option. 

I think the idea is that that implies you finished the route with a fall(s) or hang(s) whereas attempt in this case means you didn't finish the route.

J Ewrote:

I think the idea is that that implies you finished the route with a fall(s) or hang(s) whereas attempt in this case means you didn't finish the route.

I’d beg to differ. However, if you are someone who views that as an implication that an individual finished the route with falls or hangs then there is a notes section where you could write in exactly where you fell/hung/didn’t finish the route.

Adding exactly where you could not continue to the notes section seems to make way more sense and is far more beneficial than adding another section to the tick section saying you did not finish if you ask me. Many climbers would view falling/hanging as an “attempt” and not a send anyways. They would view an “attempt” the same as they would a “fell/hung” for documenting purposes. 

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

I’d beg to differ. However, if you are someone who views that as an implication that an individual finished the route with falls or hangs then there is a notes section where you could write in exactly where you fell/hung/didn’t finish the route.

Adding exactly where you could not continue to the notes section seems to make way more sense and is far more beneficial than adding another section to the tick section saying you did not finish if you ask me. Many climbers would view falling/hanging as an “attempt” and not a send anyways. The distinction would be marginal to most. 

I'd guess it depends what you're ticking for. As a matter of just keeping records then yeah that's probably sufficient. But if you specifically want to keep track (in a filterable way) of routes that had sequences you were entirely unable to perform then the "attempt" option might be helpful. I don't feel strongly one way or the other about it, I'm just trying to interpret what OP is getting at.

J Ewrote:

I'd guess it depends what you're ticking for. As a matter of just keeping records then yeah that's probably sufficient. But if you specifically want to keep track (in a filterable way) of routes that had sequences you were entirely unable to perform then the "attempt" option might be helpful. 

The definition of “attempt” and “fall/hanging” you are referring to here are both scenarios where you were unable to perform the sequences…otherwise you would have sent. I understand what you’re implying, but it can also be solved with the existing features of just making a note of where you could no longer continue. Most climbers would view a fall/hang as an “attempt”. Would we also need to make a section for routes that you aided past the crux by pulling on a draw, therefore unable to perform only a few moves?

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about it, I'm just trying to interpret what OP is getting at.

Uh huh   

What about an alpine climb? I attempted and got stormed off. I didn’t fall or hang.

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

I’d beg to differ. However, if you are someone who views that as an implication that an individual finished the route with falls or hangs then there is a notes section where you could write in exactly where you fell/hung/didn’t finish the route.

Adding exactly where you could not continue to the notes section seems to make way more sense and is far more beneficial than adding another section to the tick section saying you did not finish if you ask me. Many climbers would view falling/hanging as an “attempt” and not a send anyways. They would view an “attempt” the same as they would a “fell/hung” for documenting purposes. 

This is sort of what I do now. It really depends on how far I make it. If I’ve gotten past the main technical difficulties I might tick it, comment that I didn’t finish it and specify where exactly i stopped. Other times though, even though I’ve climbed a substantial portion of a route I might not feel comfortable ticking it at all, even with a fall/hang style attached. I’m probably not the only one (why would UKC have it if others didn’t share my sentiment?). I have no simple way to document the pitches I climbed so they’re basically lost in my record.

Another potential solution is maybe ticking routes in the “generic” area to tally pitches of routes not completed, but that’s also only a partial solution as well because it can be nice to record notes about a specific route for future attempts

Adding “did not finish” might be easy and offer a clean solution. 

Also note that while some might consider a “fall/hang” as good as failure to finish on a sport climb, there’s a substantial difference between a fall/hang and a “did not finish” on long hard adventure routes. Reaching the top after an attempted free climb of el cap with falls/hangs is very different from a “did not finish” attempt, even if your goal was to free it. There’s still something impressive in climbing it in lightweight style even if there were fall/hangs  

Jack Bushways comment about alpine climbs is also on point for a different reason. There’s an ethical dimension to claiming an incomplete ascent of a route, but nonetheless treating it as a success at some level. It seems to have been a point of discussion among high end alpinists in the 80s (eg twight and Kurtyak). It’s a totally separate issue from whether you fell or hung which is a bit irrelevant in alpine climbing. It’s probably safe to assume that view still has adherents.

Jack Bushwaywrote:

What about an alpine climb? I attempted and got stormed off. I didn’t fall or hang.

Valid argument. In the current system, personally, I would still do what I suggested and annotate where you bailed. Though my interpretation is that OP was referring to roped climbing of the trad and sport variety. “T/S”, if you will  

Adventure climbing and alpine routes are obviously much different. I hadn’t put too much thought into those applications until the OP posts above to be honest. My suggestion (for MP) would be to add an “attempt” or “did not finish” option for all routes categorized as alpine. The OP brings up another valid point in regards to long, adventure type objectives. I suppose, given the existing options (which include pinkpoint and red point) that adding “attempt” or “did not finish” could make some sense though! Personally, I wouldn’t change the existing system, but can understand the OP’s reasoning…especially with those longer objectives where falling/hanging doesn’t matter as much as just getting to the top. Overall, I don’t think MP’s main objective is detailed record keeping, there are much better avenues for that…especially if you are wanting detailed info on specific pitches on long routes. Overall, I think MP does a fantastic job for what it is though. 

Don Frijoles wrote:

Great suggestion!

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/123645834/suggestion-add-bailed-or-attempt-as-option-for-climb-ticks

The idea was rejected by Lena Chita and other MP thought leaders, and therefore will not move forward.

Do we need Jared to ban Lena to move forward? 

So you tick the routes... that you didn't send?

That's some odd behavior.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

So you tick the routes... that you didn't send?

That's some odd behavior.

Semantically speaking, yes. But if I don’t send I mark it as “fell/hung”. I agree that the term “tick” is inappropriate for a route you did not complete or send.

Don Frijoles wrote:

Great suggestion!

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/123645834/suggestion-add-bailed-or-attempt-as-option-for-climb-ticks

The idea was rejected by Lena Chita and other MP thought leaders, and therefore will not move forward.

Wow, and barely a month ago. Sorry for not doing my homework and thanks for the link. 

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

So you tick the routes... that you didn't send?

That's some odd behavior.

Not to beat a dead horse, if MP has decided not to implement this feature already, it is what it is.

But yes. Usually I'll tick a route I haven't completed if I've surmounted the main technical difficulties but didn’t complete some easier terrain at the top. This is common in the Alps when "alpine cragging", and there are certain routes in the US where more ticks are of this variety than not. Check out Mean Green in Cody. It was historically a WI5 with 3 pitches of WI3 at the top. People would frequently climb the first four sustained pitches, then not bother with the easier slabs at the top and tick it anyway. (I think that's less common now that it goes at 4+ and draws in a more moderate crowd for whom the top pitches may still hold interest.) Sometimes I have other reasons besides this "Alpine" (proper) ethic though. For instance, I once only climbed the first half of this route: https://www.mountainproject.com/route/106991421/great-dihedral-to-upper-buttress and then walked off. It's a route in its own right, and rather than create a new entry in MP and ticking that, I just ticked the route and added a comment that I only climbed the bottom half. However, most often an incomplete route simply gets no documentation whatsoever from me. There's just nowhere good to put it without reverting to the old school effort of a personal log which MP should have replaced.

I like to monitor climbing volume, and MPs pitch by month graph is helpful for that. However a month where MP shows that I’ve not climbed many pitches could be a month where I was either really lazy (read: spending too much time in the office) or really ambitious. If you do a lot of big snow/ice/mixed routes (“alpine climbs”, winter grade IVs, etc) “failure” of some kind or other becomes pretty common due to the dependence on conditions, time constraints, etc. MP provides pretty limited tools for effectively tracking volume acquired this way while still keeping an honest and transparent “tick” list.

I guess part of this just comes down to the fact that I'd prefer MP had a "climbing log" rather than a "climbing tick list". I'd venture to guess that these records are mostly only ever used by the people who make them, and other people rare inspect each other's tick lists, so it's de facto already a personal log, albeit a limited one. There's no way to list a repeat either for instance. Right now they go in as redpoints for me. Yet another feature where UKC is out ahead of the pack. 

There are entire documentaries about Mallory's Everest attempt in 1924.

No photo, no summit, no tick. Trying doesn't count.

Why can't people understand this?

Bogdan, for what it’s worth I manage this by just ticking the route, not checking any style boxes, and putting a note about where I pulled the plug.  I’m sure some boomers who never climb in the mountains and think language doesn’t change are furious that I use the website this way, but they’re also probably furious that two men can legally get married so whatever.

Edit: Some folks against this idea, both in this thread and the other thread, either have tick lists almost exclusively of single pitch sport routes and boulders, or they don't have tick lists at all.  I think we should be a bit more open to other styles of climbing, and if someone doesn't use the tick list feature at all it's hard to take seriously their opinion about how it should work.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

So you tick the routes... that you didn't send?

That's some odd behavior.

It’s called “climbing” not “sumitting.”

Andy Eiterwrote:

It’s called “climbing” not “sumitting.”

"I don't climb, I only 'send brah"

Andy Eiterwrote:

It’s called “climbing” not “sumitting.”

What about if you are trying to “send”…?

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

What about if you are trying to “send”…?

It’s called “ascending” not “completed ascent-ing.”