Route Ratings Changed to Consensus

Tom Nyce wrote:My preference is that rating within an area should be as consistent as possible. Those climbs are all in one guidebook, and there shouldn't be 5.8's that are harder than some other 5.9's for instance. When visiting climbers come to the area, they tackle some climbs cautiously to get used to the local rock type and ratings, and then can count of the guidebook consistency after that. When you allow a "consensus" of climbers (often including tons of visiting climbers, not used to that particular style of climbing) to chime in on the ratings, some climbs get changed (to match climbs in totally different areas where the climber is from). But, not all of them get changed, and the "consistency" of the ratings in that area suffer. Due to this effect, I've found that the older guidebooks to an area are often more internally consistent than the newer ones. Of course the older books have generally stiffer ratings, but they don't seem to have the unpredictable scatter that the newer books have. I'm talking about trad climbing rather than sport, because the local rock types make such a difference in the style required, and that is mainly what I have experience with. Of course, I'm not opposed to fixing up some true "sandbags," or over-rated climbs, that are not rated consistently with the other climbs in that same area.

I agree. I don't mind getting my ass kicked in a new area. And I try to grade things in places only when I've climbed there some. Different places, different styles of climbing, rock, and the grades vary. Grades are BS anyway. I do think it's important not to drag ones idea of what a grade is to a different area. And it's equally as important not to assume just because I can't do this, it's super hard, or because I can it's so easy. Grades are about averages or perhaps means - not your exact experience. Basically, grade with humility. You very well could just be lacking the requisite technique or be really good at that technique. I've often this true for me. I will admit that especially as a new climber I suffered from this 'anchoring bias' - but I'm not sure that was a bad thing. I hadn't climbed enough then to really understand what was what. With more experience I'm far freer to grade things free a peer pressure.

Nice reverse engineering, Christian!

With weighting in effect more than for just four opinions, that's incentive for more people to weigh in (and incentive to get there first).

As for always rounding down, apparently Nick is just a hardman! (jk)

nkane wrote:I'll be interested to see which way grades move with this change, both now and over time. I suspect the trajectories will be upward.

New to the sandbag game huh?

I don’t know if this is working as intended. I put up a 10c a bit ago. Someone climbed the adjacent route, got their ID on the route wrong and down graded it to 5.9. Now the site calls it 9+!  Some unsuspecting 5.9 climber has a surprise coming!! On the positive side maybe I’ll collect some booty! 

If they definitely made a mistake, post a link to that route here and I'll delete the error.

I noticed the other day that Royal Arches has finally moved to 5.10