Star Ratings Rant (route quality grading)

This has been on my mind for a long time now, and I finally was compelled to open the conversation to the community. I cant help but feel that we are in the midst of a star rating hyper-inflationary period. I know we all are entusiastic and love to climb, but our collective climbing routes can't all be as good as our star ratings are suggesting. Perhaps a little more judgement could be applied prior to offering up a perfect 4 stars? Perhaps I too have been guilty of this, although I always attempt to objectivley rate a climbs quality. As an aid for us all in I offer the following criteria adapted from Alan Watts' Smith Rocks guide book. Alan's new book is fantastic, likely the best- buy it. (The new Lawyer/Hass Adirondack Rock is also excellent!)

Route Criteria:

Zero Stars: means an awful route. Less than 5% of climbs. These climbs are the bottom of the barrel- At a minimum expect terrible rock, and a complete lack of asthetic qualities.

One Star: below average route. About 25% of climbs. These routes have an obvious flaw: bad rock, unpleasant climbing, or and unappealing setting. Despite this, they can still be worth doing, but barely

Two Stars: an average route. Around 35% of climbs. They are not good or bad, just run-of-the-mill. These routes aren't necessarily unpleasant, they just lack the great rock or super good moves found on the better climbs.

Three Stars: an above average route. Around 30% of climbs. These routes offer climbing with either average moves on exceptional rock, or stunningly brilliant climbing/position on imperfect rock. These are routes that are highly recommended

Four Stars: The creme de la creme. Around 5% of climbs. The best rock climbing has to offer. The absolute stand-out routes of Planet Earth... At a minimum these routes will feature excellent rock and superior moves, most also offer unsurpased asthetic appeal and position. The quality of a four star route is simply undisputable, and any experienced climber from anywhere on earth would agree.

Lets keep this website great, and lets keep our enthusiasum in check- To the younger, and lesser experienced climbers among us: keep this criteria in mind, travel frequently, experience as much diversity in rock and style as possible, and then use your expereince to establish tomorrows 4 star routes!

As has been noted in prior Mountain Project discussions on this subject, star ratings are a matter of consensus; everyone's entitled to their opinion of any route. If 20 people rate a route, and three of them give it four stars while the other 17 give it two stars, it's not going to be a four-star climb -- it's going to be a 2.3-star climb. On the other hand, if all 20 give it four stars, who are you to argue with the four-star rating?

Just out of curiosity, why does this bother you anyway?

JL

While I can see where you're coming from, it still bothers me when people give other people a hard time about star ratings. "How dare you give that classic route two stars!" or "How dare you give that POS route four stars!" Really?

If I climb a route and think to myself, "Whoah, that was great!" I'm going to give it three stars as per MP's star rating system (0=crap, 1=OK, 2=Good, 3=Great, 4=Classic), and I don't care what other people give it. If I happen to consistently think that routes are better or worse than other people, should you really call me out for stating my opinion?

Your star criteria is too verbose and nitpicky for me. If this website were AllenWattsSmithRockGuidebook.com, then I might be on board with your rating system. As it is, I like MP's star system that is less, uh, scientific than others.

I think a lot of us use the site as a place to record our own ascents and impressions of the routes, not what the general consensus of a route is. This site is a guidebook by the masses! Let them say what they like!

Like route difficulty ratings, star ratings are averaged to weed out the manic and the depressive votes.

You're all 3.25 stars in my book!

Keep in mind that some people rate routes relative to the area. A classic at your local crag might only merit a star or two at places like Yosemite or The Gunks.

C Miller wrote:Keep in mind that some people rate routes relative to the area. A classic at your local crag might only merit a star or two at places like Yosemite or The Gunks.

What's funny is that is that I don't think that highly of Yosemite, despite multiple trips there.

The ratings are very soft, and there's little to no variety in the rock.

If a route was established in Yosemite and has been done by 10,000+ climbers, it might be a "classic", but that doesn't mean it has that indefinable quality to make it a 4 star route.

The great thing about this site is the fact that it is a community, and an open one. It isn't one guidebook by one author, it is a guidebook with hundreds of authors. Sure one person has to post a route and give their opinion of grade and quality, but after that it's up to the rest of us to give our opinions.

If you don't agree (with a grade or star or description) post up, your opinion counts.

I've found star ratings are just as subjective as grade ratings when I compare the stars I give to routes to those of my friends who also use this site. Personally I put more emphasis on aesthetic qualities and climbing movement over rock quality (although, at times I find myself to be a choss monger). Moreover, I sometimes find my emotions get the best of me, and give 4 star routes a lower star rating because I got booted, and other routes I do exceptionally well on a generous star rating. The stars are what they are, and to me just like difficulty ratings are a guide line of what routes I look to do based on the suggestions of others.

I appreciate what Bheller is trying to do. I think those of you who have voiced your opinion are generally not the audience he's addressing. Though you all make valid points.

If I'm a new climber and I've racked up a total of 15 climbs, 6 of which are 4 stars, then something is wrong. Enthusiasm is great, I'm enthusiastic about many of the climbs I've climbed, but if its skewing the grade scale it needs to be addressed. I say, when in doubt because of lack of experience, give the route the average rating. You can always go back and change it if you strongly believe it to be a classic.

Bheller- I'll be keeping this criteria in mind when I grade routes. Thanks for posting.

It is also entirely possible that the better routes are more likely to get posted up on MP than the bombs. I know that I am more likely to add a route to the site if it is spectacular than if it is just so-so.

Edit:
Ok, a quick calculation and I would expect the average rating on Mountain Project to be around 2.67 stars. Bheller's assumption was that climb quality is a normal distribution. I think that is a fair assumption for all possible rock that we might climb. But I think a linear distribution is more reasonable for what is actually reported on MP.

Aside:
This is a good exercise for an introductory stats class, and I might use it next year.

Bobby Hansen makes a very valid point about Mountainproject users being more likely to post above average routes- I find this true for myself and am aware of this tendency.

I still support the idea of using objective criteria to define what exactly it is that makes a route great, or terrible.

I feel it is important to realize that a routes quality rating shouldn't be affected by your experience climbing said route. I've had a blast on total bombs, and hurried off undisputed classics. The level of enjoyment we experience while on a route is what is entirely subjective, and should ideally not affect our judgement when evaluating the objective attributes a route possesses.

bheller wrote:...some objective criteria that defines what exactly makes a route great...

Other than route length, rock type, and the location and number of fixed anchors, are there any objective criteria?

It seems to me that everything else about a route is subjective: rock quality, protection quality, exposure, quality of movement, historical significance, etc.

Part of the problem is the diversity of climbs out there. "Classic for the area" could mean classic for a crag, a canyon, a region. One pitch routes at Cookie versus a full-blown El Cap routes are hard to compare. I think this relates across the diversity of climbs in a community.

There are so many qualifiers that give it all the apples and oranges feel.

bheller wrote:I feel it is important to realize that a routes quality rating shouldn't be affected by your experience climbing said route. I've had a blast on total bombs, and hurried off undisputed classics. The level of enjoyment we experience while on a route is what is entirely subjective, and should ideally not affect our judgement when evaluating the objective attributes a route possesses.

Haha! No offense, but that really gave me a laugh! Sort of a Yogi Berra logic kind of thing: "That's a fantastic four-star route, I hated every minute of it!"

If subjective factors like how enjoyable the climbing is don't count, then rating a route is an exercise with no meaning whatsoever.

JL

saxfiend wrote: Haha! No offense, but that really gave me a laugh! Sort of a Yogi Berra logic kind of thing: "That's a fantastic four-star route, I hated every minute of it!" If subjective factors like how enjoyable the climbing is don't count, then rating a route is an exercise with no meaning whatsoever. JL

I think you are missing what I was trying to say. You could climb a route, and not really enjoy it due to a number of reasons- a bad partner, foul weather, family troubles, unreleasable work stresses etc.

You could also thoroughly enjoy a route due to the opposites of the above mentioned examples.

Just because you had a blast on a route, it doesn't mean it deserves 4 stars. Just because you hated the experience you had on a route doesn't mean it deserves a bomb. Here is where the value of using objective grading criteria should become obvious.

By the way, I hope we all DO have a BLAST on the bombs:)

to rectify this, a policy should be mandated in which these criteria need to be met:

• lead it,
• follow it,
• blindfolded or by headlamp
• Downclimb it,
• BASE it,
• Drink a bottle of wine with it
• Propose marriage on it
• Divorce it

After this you will walk away knowing you have experienced the climb, and have undoubtedly found it worthwhile to leave for someone else to deal with from now on....

bheller wrote: I think you are missing what I was trying to say. You could climb a route, and not really enjoy it due to a number of reasons- a bad partner, foul weather, family troubles, unreleasable work stresses etc. You could also thoroughly enjoy a route due to the opposites of the above mentioned examples. Just because you had a blast on a route, it doesn't mean it deserves 4 stars. Just because you hated the experience you had on a route doesn't mean it deserves a bomb. Here is where the value of using objective grading criteria should become obvious. By the way, I hope we all DO have a BLAST on the bombs:)

Fair enough, though I doubt that a bomb rating from someone having a bad day is going to do much to skew the overall rating of a four-star route. What I'm trying to say is that as far as I'm concerned, objectivity and star ratings are mutually exclusive. The objective aspects of the route (rock quality, protectibility, difficulty, etc.) are more or less quantifiable; star ratings, on the other hand, are a matter of opinion, which is inherently subjective.

Using your system to rate routes would be like writing a review of the Mona Lisa based on what kind of paint da Vinci used, or the kind of wood it's painted on, or how it's framed -- totally irrelevant in terms of rating the work of art.

JL

I appreciate the consensus of the climbing community but ultimately the only way I can rate a climb is from my own experience. Seems like everyone is welcome to their opinion. I'm glad we don't all agree or we would all be trying to climb the same routes. I take the rating for what it is.

All that rain and humidity messing with your head yet Brad?
Your standards WILL drop living back there.
You will be sooooo happy climbing any old piece of shit after its rained for 2 weeks. :)

Dave Bohn aka "Old Fart" wrote: ... Yosemite, ... The ratings are very soft, ....

According to what rating system? Saying that the Yosemite Decimal System is not accurate for Yosemite is sorta like saying that the International Standard Meter is too long.