Area and Route Descriptions in the Wasatch

This post is obviously in response to the recent route descriptions posted by Tony (‘ooo’) and the negative reactions to them. Obviously some are unhappy with some of Tony’s contributions; note however, that Tony is not the worst route description author we have here, nor are Tony’s descriptions uniformly bad.

I thought it might be useful for all involved in posting and using routes and other information in the Wasatch area to discuss what we want to see in route descriptions in this area. If you contribute to or regularly use the Wasatch content, please add your own thoughts to this forum thread. Don’t be bashful — if you have thoughts, share them with us.

I’d like to keep this civil, so let’s not let it degenerate into a “bash Tony” thread, and I’d like Tony to contribute his thoughts as well. For all concerned, if someone writes something you don’t agree with, tackle the thought, not the person.

The following are my thoughts (yeah, I do a lot of thinking...sorry about the novel):

General

Visit the area; climb the route. Write up the description sufficiently soon afterwards that you can remember details.

Use your own words. Parroting the guidebook is dumb. We all have the guidebook. We want to read your impressions.

Use the formatting available; this ain’t no manual typewriter with fixed-pitch pica type (I know, I know, if you’re much younger than me you don’t even know what those words mean). If you don’t know what formatting features are available, go back and edit your description and click on the Text Formatting Features link at the bottom of the editing box.

I personally like to put the titles of routes and areas when used in their own descriptions in Italics — it makes them stand out. I also like to link to other areas or routes from within a description using italics and a hyperlink. So, I’ll do something like this <em>[[105739694]]</em>, which shows up as Bongeater Buttress.

A picture is worth a thousand words...but doesn’t replace the need for words. Don’t skimp on location information or the description by resorting to writing “see the photo.”

Don’t post duplicate photos. Use the add Photo (copy) option available when you edit an area or route entry.

Put objective information of general interest in the description. Put most of your subjective impressions in a comment. E.g, if you hate a route, describe it dispassionately anyway and add a comment that says that you hate it and describes why. (However, put enough of your personality and impressions into the descriptions to make the rest of us interested).

I like to write my descriptions in a word processor or other editor before creating the Mountain Project entry. This gives me plenty of time to edit, change my mind, etc. Staring at the editing form on the screen tends to make me feel rushed.

Go back and look at your entries from time to time. Edit them and fix mistakes you didn’t see the last time. Add new information. Add formatting to make it easier on the eyes.

“When you submit content to MP, you need to expect that it might be moved, modified, or improved for the benefit of the community.” — Andy Laakman

Finally, if you don’t have the time to do it right, don’t do it now.

Areas

I generally think the division of routes into areas should follow the most recent guidebook. This makes it easier to correlate what is on mp.com with the guidebook, and generally means that the area will correspond to what the locals expect. Exceptions obviously may need to be made for various reasons. E.g., if too many routes are listed on the left of the page it’s hard to locate the route you are interested in. So if the guidebook has 50 routes in an area and they are all on Mountain Project, maybe splitting the area is a good idea. Suggest that to the admins.

Description

An area description should describe the general location of the area, its general characteristics, and any historical information known about the area. Since Mountain Project is a web site and is “Beyond the Guidebook”, use hyperlinks to make the page more interesting. Do whatever research you can. I’d like to think my page describing the Woodbury Road Crags is a reasonable example of this.

Location

The area location should include detailed enough information that someone not from “around here” can find the area just from the information in Mountain Project. Writing “see the guidebook” is the epitome of laziness and should cause the author to have to spend one week locked in a classroom with my 10th grade English teacher (not my 7th grade teacher, she was hot).

Also, don’t solely reference other areas. Writing “this area is just east of [some other area]” isn’t very helpful except as additional information. This is particularly true if the description of “some other area” has equally bad location information.

Routes

Add a photo topo of the route if possible. If there is a good photo topo of the area that shows the route, add it to the route entry as a copy.

Add photos of someone climbing the route. One of the best parts of Mountain Project is an action photo that makes you want to go get on the route in the photo.

Description

I like longer route descriptions. I like descriptions that describe the climb without giving away specific beta on individual moves. I like descriptions that make me want to climb the route.

Location

I like location information that lets me find the route without having to refer to a photo topo. The reason for this is that I find it easier to remember a phrase from the location information (“3rd bolted line from the right”) than to sort out the memory of a photo topo in my mind.

Don’t reference other lines for location information. Writing “this is just right of Superroute” doesn’t help me if I don’t know where Superroute is, and is particularly unhelpful if the location information for Superroute is similarly unhelpful. However, as supplemental information that sort of thing is fine: “This route is the 3rd bolted line from the right, next to the shallow dihedral. It is just right of Superroute.”

Protection

Protection information for trad routes should be something more than just “standard rack”. That isn’t helpful to someone who doesn’t normally climb in the area.

For bolted sport routes “draws and chains” isn’t terribly helpful. An exact bolt count is more useful, and might help someone on their onsight attempt.

Length

Use the middle marker of your rope to estimate how much rope is out when the leader gets to the end of the pitch. If a single pitch sport route, figure it out after lowering and divide by 2. Look at your six foot belayer and mentally stack him to get an estimate. (We humans are almost uniformly bad at estimating heights and distances without something to compare to. We are really good at estimating angles, however).

I find it kind of amusing how many closely protected, 5-bolt sport routes are listed as 60 or 80 feet long.

I concur...

Can you just sum it up? In a list maybe :)

Or, even better, have more mandatory categories that need to be filled in before something can be posted? QA?

Or, maybe something that is incomplete goes to you first, to be reviewed...of course, the electronic FA still must go to the rightful poster...in the method and style they choose...

ethics man, ethics...

Perin Blanchard wrote:...I like location information that lets me find the route without having to refer to a photo topo. The reason for this is that I find it easier to remember a phrase from the location information (“3rd bolted line from the right”) than to sort out the memory of a photo topo in my mind....

This "3rd from the left" type of description falls apart when a new line gets squeezed in...

Larry DeAngelo wrote: This "3rd from the left" type of description falls apart when a new line gets squeezed in...

Ah...the miracle of editing... :-)

Nice list Perin, thanks for writing and posting it.

ooo wrote:Respectful, private, e-mails with specific suggestions for solutions to your issues will be heard and addressed. Public attacks, public whining, public complaining and/or public ranting will be ignored. Very simple. Your choice.

I think private email works fine for some issues. Certainly the tone of the public comments directed to many of your descriptions has left something to be desired (I applaud those who are making the effort to be civil).

However, for correcting factual information I think public comments are better, because the comments will cause others to "correct the correction", suggest additional information, etc.

Excellent and pertinent list Perin. Thankyou.
Redundancy is clutter and hence loses the readers' interest. Redundancy implies multiple entries. An entry should be a route that has been climbed by the person entering it. Direct experience with climbing said route should be obligatory. If one really wants to inform other climbers about an area they enjoy, and yet are somehow limited to make an adequate entry, why not pass the buck to others? Such as the FA party (if they are still breathing), or other friends who shared the climb with them and maybe took better pictures? If a new Smoot route gets entered by me, for example, I might not bother to be as detailed as Brian. I won't know the same history or events that led to the FA....all details that are actually quite a bit of interest to me. My entry will therefore prevent Brian from entering the route on MP with the better beta.

As I am a gumby and I often put up routes that other fellow gumbies (I haven't established many or any really, 5.12-5.13 routes!) hopefully will enjoy, the virtual world of MP type guidebook and forum communication is so much more direct and NOW than the printed guidebook. It is the beauty of it really. Whereas before, we had to wait 7-10 years and it was obsolete as soon as it hit the shelves. Just think if the Dorsal Fin had been first climbed while MP was around, well, I doubt if the 2nd ascent would have waited 10 years as it did. Furthermore, the whole Stifflers Mom controversy would never have occurred pre-internet guidebook reporting. Months or maybe even years would have passed until the next ascent.....so, plenty of advantages as well as disadvantages to internet guidebooks with forums....but I still feel, if not misused, MP can be a great tool for up to the minute route beta.

I look forward to long descriptions as well. Ryan Brough has entered some of the most exciting and interesting route descriptions I have seen on MP. The reader really looks forward to repeating the route and seems to go there with some type of history tucked away in their chaulk bag. And one never has a problem finding the area, the crag, or the route. Anyway, dialog on this subject is long overdue. I am against regulation, but at the same time, I am against individuals monopolizing entries.....about climbs they haven't even done!

glen kaplan wrote:...Can you just sum it up?

• Climb
• Pretty words
• Pretty pictures

:-)

Don't be lame. You know if you are writing a shitty description or not. We shouldn't have to tell you. Quantity is not better than quality.

Nice post Perin.

I think Main Hellgate is a great example of a great area page. It gives you history, a good flavor of the area, a warning of objective dangers, good approach beta, and it is really well written. All this for an area that only has one submitted route so far! Can you imagine the quality of the Wasatch section if every area submitter took the time to craft this sort of entry?

Routes are a mixed bag to describe. It can be tough to write a compelling description for a 6 bolt 5.10 that is pretty much the same as the 6 bolt 5.10 6 feet to the right of it, but its worth putting in a tiny bit of effort to keep the routes from just being a long tick list. Sinsemilla Crack is a good entry for a short route, and The Ace-Drizzle Memorial Route is a great entry for a bigger route.

I think that having so many route descriptions consist of very short flavorless blurbs is a big bummer and wish that trend would die right now.

John J. Glime wrote:Don't be lame. You know if you are writing a shitty description or not. We shouldn't have to tell you. Quantity is not better than quality.

Well, unfortunately that's sometimes not the case. And, when someone is not willing to engage in public discussion, that makes the whole process more frustrating. Public feedback can be a very useful tool.

When I travel to an area that's not my home turf, and I print out a mini guidebook from here to suss out the day's adventures, its the comments that not only provide entertainment, but, sometimes key insight from climbers about the route. Sometimes the commments are much more useful than the original description to me.

Variety is the spice of life. Having one person dominate an area ruins the community feel, IMHO. The more people that get involved the more you have a community. And, to me, especially when folks from out of town or someone who's new to the area rediscovers an old classic, its neat to read their impression of it either in a comment or by letting them add it as a route description.

Big tent. And evolution takes time. No rush. We all own the guidebook and its more than adequate for most routes here.

Great post, Perin.

-Brian in SLC

Its not like I really care too much, but I was not just referring to ooo, there are other posters that are similar in their descriptions.

Also, this problem can be found throughout this site beyond the wasatch.

Those types of posts just aren't very helpful, and if they aren't helpful, then what's the point?

Well said, Brian. A patchwork of contributions from different Wasatch climbers is what makes this place interesting to me. Tony's motivations on MP (as exemplified by the above post) are a turn off. No man is an island especially in such a large community.

ooo wrote:99% of the comments on routes I post provide absolutely no helpful information. If people want to help they can. If people want to complain that is what they will do, too. The few outspoken folks on here (we all know who they are) just complain or stroke their buddies. I think folks should consider if their RDB comment is going to be helpful and if it is going to be heard. I ignore people when they are not kind. I ignore people if they are not providing any useful info. So it just ends up being a waste of everyone's time and energy. Nothing gets improved. And the RDB is filled with more useless comments that nobody wants to read but a few folks who thrive on bullying.

Actually, not true. You don't ignore them, you change your posts and even your user name.

ooo wrote:Its as if some folks never learned any manners. If you absolutely have to accuse, blame, use juvenile names, be crass and/or make assumptions about motivations or something they did to get your point across the least you can do is do it privately. If you can be civil, go ahead and say it publicly. But I WILL ignore unkind public comments.

That there is the pot calling the kettle black.

And, I think you feed on the attention. Someone was critical of your description of Trench Warfare, for instance. You respond by posting a picture of the route with ton of crack measurements. Ie, not only do you not ignore it, you go totally overboard and provide detailed beta in excrutiating detail.

Why not slow down the route beta and endless approach and crag photo barrage? Post a few routes near and dear but let other folks have a stake in this too. Quality, not quantity.

Comments to your contributions are out of hand ooo - even when you post something good, people jump on you.

You don't help your case at all when you post route descriptions the way you do however. Your contributions that have come through in the last day or two have been better and I am happy about that, but the numerous awful route and area descriptions, patronizing disclaimers, and bait and switch tactics with photos and routes that get negative comments really bring on the negativity.

You personally don't have to post everything ooo. Make fewer contributions and only post when you want to take the time to craft a well written description and you will draw less criticism.

At the same time, ooo has provided lots of good photos and descriptions too... those are appreciated.

You do get good feedback when you post a good description - 43 people have voted your contributions great(you can see this under your profile). Dark Horse is another example.

Enough with the persecution complex. You do get more than your fair share of abuse, but you also do more to bring it on yourself than anyone on mountainproject.

ooo wrote:I'm not hearing appreciation.

Well, I appreciate some of your entries. Here is an example of one which I think is quite good: Nob Job.

Clay (tenesmus) also added a number of complimentary comments during the last little while.

Others I don't like, e.g., ??.

But we all have hits and misses: This one of mine is pretty lame. I need to fix it.

I think the sheer volume you are putting in lately is affecting the quality. Slow down a bit...I have
photo topos of areas not in Mountain Project I've been sitting on for months because I want more
information before I post.

ooo wrote:I'm not responsible for other people's behavior Andrew.

Are you saying if you yelled fire in a crowded theater, you wouldn't be responsible for people's behavior?

Through your actions in the canyons, and your posts on this website, you bring this upon yourself.

James Garrett wrote:Such as the FA party (if they are still breathing), or other friends who shared the climb with them and maybe took better pictures? If a new Smoot route gets entered by me, for example, I might not bother to be as detailed as Brian. I won't know the same history or events that led to the FA....all details that are actually quite a bit of interest to me. My entry will therefore prevent Brian from entering the route on MP with the better beta.

The FA (or others) can always (and should) enter better beta. The information can either live in comments, or be incorporated into the description by the admins. In some cases when the updated information comes wholly or mostly from a commenter, Andy Laakman suggests reassigning the route to the author of the better information. What do our Wasatch users think about that?

As for deferring to FAs for descriptions...I think sometimes we are better off with the FA writing the description, and sometimes not. Some FAs' descriptions are really bad; other FAs write really good descriptions. Sometimes it is more interesting to read a description of a route from someone that is really excited about the climb than a description from the FA to whom the route is just another line in a long series. Other times the FA is too modest (or braver than the rest of us) and won't describe the excitement of a route adequately.

o3,
Man, you got us all beat on that 43....good on ya.
bsmoot 8
jg 11
tp 13
Brian in sl 6
JK.....a lowly miserable 1! People love you, dude. You got us all beat with that 43! Must be due to your openness to criticism and self responsibility to your posts....awesome. Again, congratulations.

Perin,
I didn't know that about the FA stuff. Thanks. Sorry if I contributed to misinformation.