Route Star Inflation

So, I'm bored at work and was wandering about on MP and noticed that in some areas almost every single route is either 3 or 4 stars. A number of areas at Indian Creek are like this and so are a few at Index etc... I am wondering, as I have climbed in IC and some of the routes I did I would consider classic, whether or not there seems to be some sort of route rating inflation going on with everyone rating routes 4 stars...

Or are these routes just straight classic?

p.s. wicked bored so don't take this too seriously.

Alex Quitiquit wrote:So, I'm bored at work and was wandering about on MP and noticed that in some areas almost every single route is either 3 or 4 stars. A number of areas at Indian Creek are like this and so are a few at Index etc... I am wondering, as I have climbed in IC and some of the routes I did I would consider classic, whether or not there seems to be some sort of route rating inflation going on with everyone rating routes 4 stars... Or are these routes just straight classic? p.s. wicked bored so don't take this too seriously.

They're actually that good at Index. I don't really see how you could differentiate between routes at Indian Creek, if any of them deserve 4 stars, they really all should.

I think people not from the creek are super-psyched about splitters and rate them all highly. But that's fine> IC is indeed world class, so the same user group is essentially voteing "everythng here is better than at the Sport Park."
Which is true, and OK to say.

I mean some routes deserve to be rated top marks but are they really "classic"? Do you have to climb these routes to experience the true essence of the area...

case and point - mountainproject.com/v/main-…

I've never been to Index.. I'm actually heading that way in a few weeks and was looking at the routes, I'm more psyched now seeing the high ratings, but I climb a lot in Little Cottonwood and if a route doesn't literally blow your mind... it's not rated classic.

Is every route at this wall going to blow my mind?

Index is one of the best crags in the US, it's like someone took the Cookie and Arch Rock and stuck them in the rainforest. The rock is great, the routes are great, the only thing that isn't great is the weather.

A bit off topic, but I think if you look at the area classics as determined by MP you'll see that a lot of them are the easier routes.
Seems like because the easier routes get done more often and there are, overall more folks giving them more stars these routes get the "classic" moniker.
Whereas since there are fewer votes overall on the harder lines it only takes a vote or two to take them out of contention for being a classic.

Not sure if that's totally true, I'm sure one of the site admins that knows the MP secret sauce could clarify.

Alex Quitiquit wrote:I mean some routes deserve to be rated top marks but are they really "classic"? Do you have to climb these routes to experience the true essence of the area... case and point - mountainproject.com/v/main-… I've never been to Index.. I'm actually heading that way in a few weeks and was looking at the routes, I'm more psyched now seeing the high ratings, but I climb a lot in Little Cottonwood and if a route doesn't literally blow your mind... it's not rated classic. Is every route at this wall going to blow my mind?

The lower town wall is the single most stacked granite crag I've ever been to. It will most likely be wet for the next month or two though. It's really only any good between the end of September and the 2nd week of October. I wouldn't recommend going out of your way to visit.

Here's your secret sauce for the classics lists if that's what you're referring to: supertopo.com/climbing/thre…

"The classic list for any area is actually a computer generated list based on an algorithm that analyzes page views, stars, and ratings."

Generally speaking I feel there is some inflation on this site. My theory is the way people perceive the stars. Two stars means good. To me that means quality route that I would do again or at least recommend. Three stars means great. This is a very high designation. High quality and memorable. So four stars is beyond great. For this to be true most every aspect of the route should be top notch. Quality rock, excellent movement, beautiful setting, lots of moves close to the grade and overall quite memorable.

The creek has tons of great routes which means three stars. There are a few that are more memorable than the rest. These may deserve four stars. But the creek sees so many visitors from far away. So to these people feel every route seems awesome because overall creeks routes are quite unique compared to the rest of the world.

It would be valuable to see stars given by those that frequent a given area. Then we might see a little better stratification.

I think there is some confusion as to what the star rating is based on — the area or worldwide? I give star ratings for the area. Maybe there should be a star rating specifically for each area in general, because a four-star route at Indian Creek will always be better than a four-star route at the Puoux, which is roadside limestone sport climbing off I-70.

D-Storm wrote:I think there is some confusion as to what the star rating is based on — the area or worldwide? I give star ratings for the area. Maybe there should be a star rating specifically for each area in general, because a four-star route at Indian Creek will always be better than a four-star route at the Puoux, which is roadside limestone sport climbing off I-70.

This is a very good point, and it deserves some thought. Even in the fairly recent past, when guidebooks and local word-of-mouth were the main systems of distributing route information, star systems were defined within the context of the local area. In the guidebook to Indian Creek, a one-star route was given that star rating within the context of Indian Creek, which has thousands of amazing cracks. One the other end of the spectrum, a 5-star route in a local Maryland crag guidebook (or similar mediocre area) will only be 5-stars in the context of the local area. It is (was) all about That 5-star Maryland route, if transported to Yosemite, would get 1 star. Meanwhile, basically any halfway-decent 1-star crack from Indian Creek would be a 5-star route almost anywhere else in the world, since it would be so unique.

This also brings up the point that local star ratings depend largely on local uniqueness. In a place where splitter cracks are a dime-a-dozen, like Indian Creek, a generic handcrack will get a much lower star rating than it would somewhere with a dearth of splitters, like Eldo. This is not to say that Indian Creek is better than Eldo (although it is...), since a technical, RP protected face climb from Eldo might receive a higher star rating in Indian Creek than it would in Eldo, again because of the local uniqueness element. Overall, a route will get a higher (locally-defined) star rating if it offers something dramatically different than what else is locally available, simply due to the novelty-factor.

This effect becomes even more significant on the international scale. Anything with a tufa is usually automatically at least 3-stars (out of 5) if it is United States, just since tufa climbing is so rare here. That same tufa-route might be only a 1-star climb in a country that is more tufa-endowed.

So, back to the Mountain Project-related discussion. Mountainproject is doing something very different from the old way, which ws to consider routes only within their local context; i.e. within the scale of quality in that guidebook. Mountainproject is essentially creating an open-source, national (or even international) scale guidebook. I don't think that the question has been fully answered as to whether route-quality ratings on Mountainproject should be made within the local context, or within the context of the entire database.

Jon Moen wrote: I don't think that the question has been fully answered as to whether route-quality ratings on Mountainproject should be made within the local context, or within the context of the entire database.

FWIW, I always do mine as sort of a mix between local and overall. At good areas, my average star count will be higher, but I still give 4 star ratings at crappier crags if the route is a standout at the area.

The routes listed on for the lower town wall at Index on mountain project are pretty much only the classics plus a few modern FFA's. There are again as many non classic pitches but no one has bothered to post them.

I will agree with John Wesely and others here. I think of the quality of climbs in a particular area in relation to one another which I can't but help to think of in the context of everything I have ever climbed.

I like the idea of giving areas stars. Steve Edwards does this in his Central Coast climbing guide, but these ratings are still on a regional basis. Go national? Worldwide? Where does it stop...

There is a new guidebook for Joshua Tree in which quality indices are tremendously meaningful because the author was very frugal with awarding quality stars to routes. In a guidebook that has already selected group of the top 2600 routes (out of ~8,000), you will only find at most a handful of routes (often only one or two) at any grade with the maxed number of stars (4 in this case.) The author doled out only slightly more 3 star ratings.

Given the context of the area, Joshua Tree being a 3 1/2 (out of 4 IMHO) star area, any 1 star is well worth doing and a 2 star is a good route anywhere. People come from all over the world to climb the 3 and 4 star routes.

If you put a "1 star crag modifier" on your "area classic 4 star route" listed at your local crag, your route becomes a 1.5 star route when viewed at the macro level. It would be interesting...and the debate of which area is of better quality would be entertaining.

Jan Roestel wrote:I will agree with John Wesely and others here. I think of the quality of climbs in a particular area in relation to one another which I can't but help to think of in the context of everything I have ever climbed. I like the idea of giving areas stars. Steve Edwards does this in his Central Coast climbing guide, but these ratings are still on a regional basis. Go national? Worldwide? Where does it stop... There is a new guidebook for Joshua Tree in which quality indices are tremendously meaningful because the author was very frugal with awarding quality stars to routes. In a guidebook that has already selected group of the top 2600 routes (out of ~8,000), you will only find at most a handful of routes (often only one or two) at any grade with the maxed number of stars (4 in this case.) The author doled out only slightly more 3 star ratings. Given the context of the area, Joshua Tree being a 3 1/2 (out of 4 IMHO) star area, any 1 star is well worth doing and a 2 star is a good route anywhere. People come from all over the world to climb the 3 and 4 star routes. If you put a "1 star crag modifier" on your "area classic 4 star route" listed at your local crag, your route becomes a 1.5 star route when viewed at the macro level. It would be interesting...and the debate of which area is of better quality would be entertaining.

Good points all around, and especially so in your last sentence. Considering quality on a larger (i.e. beyond one area) scale becomes much trickier because preferences in style of climbing, type of route, type of rock, etc. come into play. A route really needs to be graded within its genre; you can't compare a steep sport climb to a vertical crack, or to a 5 pitch slab. Each is its own animal, and the number of stars that a person gives a route depends on their biases.

These biases are easier to deal with when you are working on the local scale, since you are comparing each route to other routes in the same area, so they are likely to share certain aspects of style, rock type, scenery, etc. Any given climb in the Rifle guidebook is being compared to other Rifle climbs, not to Indian Creek cracks.

But on the larger scale, you run the risk of comparing climbs to ones of a different genre. If your favorite area is Maple Canyon, you may not rate Tuolomne slabs very highs; the opposite may be true for a California slab rat visiting Utah.

Another note: pretty much all of the comments thus far about star ratings are also true for grades.

I prefer a 5 star rating system for single pitch climbs. I can live with MP's 4 star limitation (I just combine 4&5), but I'm not a fan of guidebooks that only use 3 stars. I base my ratings on the following scale:

1-star: More or less a pile, worth one go if you're desperate for a pitch, otherwise avoid unless inspired.

2-star: Not completely terrible, probably worth one go, you might enjoy it depending on your preferred style(s) of climbing

3-star: Good route, most everyone will enjoy it. Some may have issue with the movement or other aspects of the climb (e.g. might not be sustained, wanders a bit or other jankiness). Potentially worth more than one ascent.

4-star: Amazing route, only the most bitter haters will not like it. Movement will be excellent, cruxes will inspire psyche, once you finish the route you'll immediately start spraying how awesome that pitch was. The route will be worth doing more than once.

5-star: Ultra-classic, a route that defines the wall or crag. Worth projecting until completion and likely high atop every visiting climber's ticklist. Excellent moves, memorable cruxes, worth repeating, doing laps, etc.

For routes I've rated on this website, I pretty much just combine 4 and 5 star routes together and rate down from there. Hopefully this gives some folks a basis for comparison in their own ratings.

Quality ratings have to be taken in context. For example, Amazing Face (1 pitch sport climb on really sandy sandstone with pretty repetitive and boring climbing) gets about as many stars as Traveler Buttress (in the 50 classics and a pretty good route). Amazing Face is likely to be rated by sport climbers from the Bay area, where it is one of the better routes for its distance from the city. It is clearly not in the same category as Traveler Buttress, which gets rated by trad climbers from around the country expecting it to be one of the 50 best routes in North America.

I just read through the thread and I guess someone else already hit on this a bit, but the point is that it depends on who rates it and what their expectations are. Anybody who travels from Colorado to climb Amazing Face certainly wouldn't give it three stars.

Dan Foster wrote:I prefer a 5 star rating system for single pitch climbs. I can live with MP's 4 star limitation (I just combine 4&5), but I'm not a fan of guidebooks that only use 3 stars. I base my ratings on the following scale: 1-star: More or less a pile, worth one go if you're desperate for a pitch, otherwise avoid unless inspired. 2-star: Not completely terrible, probably worth one go, you might enjoy it depending on your preferred style(s) of climbing 3-star: Good route, most everyone will enjoy it. Some may have issue with the movement or other aspects of the climb (e.g. might not be sustained, wanders a bit or other jankiness). Potentially worth more than one ascent. 4-star: Amazing route, only the most bitter haters will not like it. Movement will be excellent, cruxes will inspire psyche, once you finish the route you'll immediately start spraying how awesome that pitch was. The route will be worth doing more than once. 5-star: Ultra-classic, a route that defines the wall or crag. Worth projecting until completion and likely high atop every visiting climber's ticklist.

That is already close to MP's rating system more or less... because if you subtract 1, and start from 0, you've got more or less the same thing. Your one star is 'the bomb' here.

i think there should be a difference between a 1 star and a bomb. a 1 star is worth doing if you have climbed everything else, a bomb is a pile that i wouldn't recommend to others.

i prefer the 5 star rating also, as there is an obvious rating for average routes (3 star). i have a hard time choosing whether to go 2 star or 3 star for an average route on the 4 star system.

I don't think that the MP Four-Star rating system has enough divisions to really support a state or national across-the-board comparison. If Four Stars are reserved for only the best of the best ultra classic routes in the country, the majority of crags should honestly be all 1 to 2 star routes. Then you're left with just a couple gradations with which to differentiate route quality.

If we're talking about a truly national comparison, how many crags have even a single 3-star route on them? 25% or less?

I've always assumed that route stars were a local-area comparison, so that I can look at a single crag and use the star ratings to determine which routes I should try to get on when I'm at that particular crag. I definitely don't use the abundance of stars to determine whether a particular area or state is worth visiting in the first place...

I agree with Jan that the author's stingy use of stars in the J-Tree guidebook makes the system work better.

Alexander Nees wrote: I've always assumed that route stars were a local-area comparison, so that I can look at a single crag and use the star ratings to determine which routes I should try to get on when I'm at that particular crag.

Yep.