"Copy and Paste" on MP

I don't know what it takes to write a comprehensive guidebook for an area but I do know if I want to spend time climbing somewhere I have never visited I am thankful for a guide to haul around from crag to crag.

As far as college papers goes, blah blah blah. I have been to college and know all about what is acceptable, that's missing the point.

Here is the point, I want to go climbing somewhere in the Mediterranean so I research different websites to see what is out there. There is Climb Europe, RockFax, and other area specific sites to glean information from. Then I check MP to see what people think about an area and to read their experiences (i.e. travel from the States, places they ate, itinerary, etc). I don't want to read the exact information on MP that I just read on another website, I want to read what climbers (not authors) think about the rock, routes, areas, local customs and food. AFTER I have picked the area I want to visit THEN I will buy a guidebook to use while I am climbing. I want original information on MP, if it's regurgitated then this site is pointless.

For my local crags I have guidebooks, most of which are recorded to memory. I look at MP to read what other climbers think about a route, which routes vary from the description in the guide, where rockfall has changed a wall, and other issues like parking. MP is also where I learn about new routes going up in my area.

Plagiarism is not my complaint, albeit wrong, regurgitation and unoriginal information is annoying when I am looking for information on places and routes to climb.

Colonel Mustard wrote: You are actually against the best things about this site such as current conditions beta, grade consensus (both from those stupid comments), FREE route descriptions, and pics that inspire or point you to the right route? Tough crowd.

Of course I like the beta, the route and area condition reports, and the free route descriptions (and sometimes even topos) for areas I've never been, or when I don't have the guide or the guide is out of print. Mountain Project is a great resource! The question is whether the contributors to the website ought to lift descriptions directly from the guide book, or if we should add information from first-hand experience. The site administrators want us to use our experience, rather than copying information from other published sources. This doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.

And I think this would help: get rid of the "points" system. It encourages the mass copying of route information from guide books that the site administrators want to avoid. 10 points for this, 5 points for that ... what's the *point*?

Kalil Oldham wrote: Of course I like the beta, the route and area condition reports, and the free route descriptions (and sometimes even topos) for areas I've never been, or when I don't have the guide or the guide is out of print. Mountain Project is a great resource! The question is whether the contributors to the website ought to lift descriptions directly from the guide book, or if we should add information from first-hand experience. The site administrators want us to use our experience, rather than copying information from other published sources. This doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. And I think this would help: get rid of the "points" system. It encourages the mass copying of route information from guide books that the site administrators want to avoid. 10 points for this, 5 points for that ... what's the *point*?

The conversation changed a bit (drifted) with some of the posts into a question of mproject.com and similar resources killing the guidebook. I agree, first-hand descriptions only. Personally, I only post routes that I have been on (although - full disclosure - I have posted a multiple pitch sport route I only did the first pitch of).

Another annoying trend to do with the point system are users like Blitzo who post terse, inaccurate route descriptions purely for points (he is, like, second highest pointaneer of all time! yayzers!). I post routes for my own enjoyment as well as my own climbing log which for better or worse I keep on here. Having people motivated to post routes is great for this place, but I agree that shoddy jobs that steal others' descriptive prowess, or are not otherwise very useful should be discouraged.

I may have missed your *point* after all, I apologize if my response came off as harsh ;). Deduct me 50 points, lol.

Colonel Mustard wrote: Having people motivated to post routes is great for this place, but I agree that shoddy jobs that steal others' descriptive prowess, or are not otherwise very useful should be discouraged. I may have missed your *point* after all, I apologize if my response came off as harsh ;). Deduct me 50 points, lol.

Ha, no worries. I think we're on the same page.

Seems pretty simple. Plagiarism is not the issue. And if the info is not already available in the guidebook, post it up, there's plenty of unpublished, existing routes to be found out there.

However, of the few areas I have looked into it seems that 90% of the listed routes have been published in guidebooks previously. ("point chasers") Yes, there are a few routes posted by first ascentionists and, far fewer, routes that are not in guidebooks that have been posted by adventurous climbers out exploring forgotton, obscure stuff (and that is great), but those are not in the majority.

If, and it looks like it could if this trend continues unabatted, guidebook authors no longer are able to put out a financially viable guidebook due to established info available online; Where is all the NEW info and historical documentation going to originate from? Once all the available, published, material is posted the "new" info will slow to a trickle and the historical record will certainly not be maintained.

And.....what exactly is the purpose of posting info readidly available in an in print guidebook anyway? Easy answer: To allow climbers to access the information for free without contributing to the, expensive, costs of producing a guidebook.

Guidebook authors do not need guidebooks to the areas they are documenting. They certainly are not interested in the few cents it might make(lucky to break even).

Guidebook authors write guidebooks because they have a long term interest in documenting the climbing history of an area and they want to share that knowledge with others. It would be a lose-lose situation if that tradition ends. Just consider the long term consequences, like the story I related in one of the above posts about a potential author having info on some great new climbing, but the feasability of getting that info out, in a guidebook anyhow, is now not viable for his area due to too much info, (originally made available from guidebooks) now available on MP.

"Free" comes with a price....... It's up to the next generation of climbers to figure out. There's still time to decide if they want guidebooks to stick around.

All right...I'm off to go interview an "oldtimer" about some routes he did bitd in support of the new guidebook for Northeast California by Paul Bernard. Or maybe I'll just keep those for myself......

Cheers, carry on now. This is all good discussion. :)

John Jackson wrote: However, of the few areas I have looked into it seems that 90% of the listed routes have been published in guidebooks previously.

Are you suggesting that routes already published in a guidebook should NOT be posted? Good luck with that.

John Jackson wrote:Where is all the NEW info and historical documentation going to originate from? :)

If guidebooks disappear, then first ascensionists will need to publish their routes on MP or some other online resource. Seems like a win-win to me.

If I'm travelling and plan to just do a couple of classics out of town, I'll rely on MP. On the other hand, I consider a guide to my local areas with well drawn topos worth buying. I'm not sure how much a photo based guide adds to the online data, but plan to keep buying the local guides for now. However I can easily imagine a time when the online resource is as good or better and I'll save my money. If a few obscure, BITD routes get lost to history, you know, I just don't care that much.

John Jackson wrote:Seems pretty simple. Plagiarism is not the issue. And if the info is not already available in the guidebook, post it up, there's plenty of unpublished, existing routes to be found out there.

Yes, but then some guidebook author will just turnaround and put it in his book and charge us for it! Haha, joking of course. Sorta.

While I do buy guidebooks, I do not buy the argument that sites like this one will kill the medium. In fact, these sites publicize locations far and wide, generate interest, and, arguably, may even increase sales from visiting climbers! This has been the case for me time and time again since I own plenty of guidebooks that describe areas well-represented here and on other sites containing beta. People know that quality guidebooks provide vastly more than just the immediate nuts and bolts of route beta and buy them for just that reason.

I won't ignore the elephant in the room and openly admit posting several routes from your very guidebook here. For one "PCT Crack" (an FA of yours, actually), my posting seemed to generate enough interest from other users (Patrick Mulligan and his friend) that they came back to thoroughly clean the route up, re-equip the anchors, and even do a new FA adjacent to it (Helping Hands, a 5.10) that you can now publish in your next edition! Those kind of efforts, efforts that would be impossible to stay current on in print seem to benefit the climbing community and cast your guidebook in a favorable light. Perhaps my route listing did not impel their later visit, but, at the least, it served as a forum for the new efforts going on at the PCT Cliff covered in your guide.

If you wish, I'll discontinue posting "your" routes up here, there are plenty of already cleaned up classics to climb around here for me to focus on. I make sure to pay homage to your guidebook when I list one of those areas and simply believe it is nice for people to know the current conditions on these routes especially where the cleaned up status would be key information. I would do this solely out of respect to your sense of personal outrage, not because I believe posting publicly owned space is wrong. I know at least one guidebook author and prolific FA-ist who makes a habit of posting up his routes here, but perhaps his understanding of the situation and his business model are different than yours.

A source like Supertopo embodies a symbiosis of guidebook (available in multiple formats) and online route beta that is current and probably points the way forward. It is hard to imagine guidebooks won't evolve into something beyond conventional book form, although, as in any media, it is then harder to safeguard and profit from the information. Guidebooks have to strive harder nowadays to retain their caché, I do not envy your position as somebody trying to make a business out of the practice!

Colonel Mustard wrote:Yes, but then some guidebook author will just turnaround and put it in his book and charge us for it! Haha, joking of course. Sorta.

That has already happened.

what about guidebook authors that publish first ascent routes with grades that they haven't climbed; rather they truly "onsighted" them?

"If a few obscure, BITD routes get lost to history, you know, I just don't care that much."

700 of the 1,300 routes in the guide I recently published were not available in published form or on the internet and I am pretty certain that those first ascentionists had no intention, what so ever, of ever posting that information or the stories behind the routes on the internet. Those people had to be tracked down and convinced, sometimes requiring traveling long distances, to give up that information. That is not "a few obscure bitd routes"

My concern about this topic is recent, having had "my eyes opened" by the recent experience I had. The prospective guidebook author I spoke with is now not going to write the guidebook that he has collected (some very good new stuff) info for. This is due to the local retailers stating that "guidebook sales for our area are drastically down due to information being avaiable on Mountain Project and we do not believe that we could sell many copies of an updated guidebook for the region because of this". So, it has already happened in at least one locale.

There is so much climbing history out there that needs to get out that I hope this does not happen in Northern California or other regions. Guidebooks are still the best medium for getting, quality, historical information out. And, unfornuate as it may be, a minimum number of copies must be sold to cover the expensive production/publishing costs of a color guidebook. (no one will purchase black and white anymore). If that is not possible, then there will be no more guidebooks.

"Free", or stolen...........has a cost.

Colonel Mustard:

I have no worries about the route posts you have made about Tahoe area routes. In fact I was glad to see some interest in the PCT Crack and get an update about the (dirty but now clean) current conditions of the route. I'm not outraged by any of this, certainly not you, just trying to contribute to a topic that I believe may have a negative long term consequence for the climbing community.

Posting about a couple of routes that stoked you or adding needed updated info is one thing, wholesale "catologing" of a regions routes (based on previous sources) has quite a different consequence.

I am not personally irritated by people posting info that I dug up. I only joined this discussion because I enjoy well researched guidebooks and the interesting stories that come to light. Hope the next generation shares this interest in continueing to want to have them published as well. And hoping that the next guidebook I publish is always better than the last! (if there is to be future guidebooks)

Colonel Mustard wrote: .... Another annoying trend to do with the point system are users like Blitzo who post terse, inaccurate route descriptions purely for points (he is, like, second highest pointaneer of all time! yayzers!). I post routes for my own enjoyment as well as my own climbing log which for better or worse I keep on here. Having people motivated to post routes is great for this place, but I agree that shoddy jobs that steal others' descriptive prowess, or are not otherwise very useful should be discouraged.

This part of the conversation has gone on and on ad nauseum. What is agreed upon is that the whole crowd will never be satisfied with everything, much less anything. Some people like humor, some like move for move beta, some don't like any of the beta in a description, etc etc etc. I have read route descriptions that read "3rd bolt line on the left." And guess what? It was from the FA, who has put up tons of high end climbs. That's just his posting style.

So what you perceive as "shoddy" may be entirely different to how someone else may view it. As far as "stealing" from others, this place has generally been a first come first served type of database. So far we have 86,806 routes posted here and still counting. Not all of them need to be written like War and Peace, but feel free to do so if that's what pleases you! I will not "discourage" it! ;-)

Adam Stackhouse wrote: This part of the conversation has gone on and on ad nauseum. What is agreed upon is that the whole crowd will never be satisfied with everything, much less anything. Some people like humor, some like move for move beta, some don't like any of the beta in a description, etc etc etc. I have read route descriptions that read "3rd bolt line on the left." And guess what? It was from the FA, who has put up tons of high end climbs. That's just his posting style. So what you perceive as "shoddy" may be entirely different to how someone else may view it. As far as "stealing" from others, this place has generally been a first come first served type of database. So far we have 86,806 routes posted here and still counting. Not all of them need to be written like War and Peace, but feel free to do so if that's what pleases you! I will not "discourage" it! ;-)

Well and good, I appreciate different ways too post, but I'm talking about route postings culled from the forgotten hallways of time merely for point racking. The results are many descriptions that are downright false as far as gear and lacking in almost all salient detail. But I get it and realize the "comments" section allows a corrective measure for many of these gaffs of self control.

@ John Jackson - I appreciate the discussion. Moving forward, these are very pertinent questions to the climbing community as far as how route information gets out there and if people are fairly credited or compensated for the considerable effort they make in compiling these resources. When I get a spare shilling, I'll stop using my buddy Seth's guidebook and finally purchase my own copy of the Local's Guide to Tahoe. Even though I own several other guidebooks for the area, yours is truly standout in its comprehensive scope of the area.

...gaffes....!

Adam Stackhouse wrote:...gaffes....!

Actually, Adam, I'M right and YOU'RE wrong! I was talking about... 1. A large iron hook attached to a pole or handle and used to land large fish.

Okay, okay, that was a pretty funny error. Still, I don't know how this tom foolery is addressing my very important concerns. I suggest you assign multiple admins to work in teams in order to complete my mountain project fix-it list. Now! NOW! Or experience whiny PMs the likes of which you haven't seen!

I am totally opposed to plagiarism of guidebook route descriptions.

But John Jackson's argument that Mountain Project is killing guidebook sales does not hold water.

I just counted; I have at least 36 guidebooks. It was somewhat difficult to count, and I may have missed some, because I have guidebooks in every room of my house. These guidebooks range in price from around $20 to around $35. So I have spent somewhere in the $600 to $1000 range on guidebooks. Some of those guidebooks were well worth the money I spent on them (Bret and Stuart Ruckman!), others are totally crap (I only have a couple of those). Many of these guidebooks are to areas I would not have known about were it not for Mountain Project.

I also have notebooks full of notes and topos on routes that I have stumbled across. And I have notes and topos from guidebook authors who have given them to me before they published them in their guides (which I subsequently purchased).

I have been using Mountain Project since 2001 (back in the days of climbingboulder.com, climbingtucson.com, saltlakeclimbing.com, etc.). Somehow, the "stolen" information on Mountain Project hasn't saved me any money.

I also don't buy into the claim that REI has killed the mom and pop climbing shops.

I have been climbing for 21 years.

I saw two climbing shops in Tucson come and go. Both died in the 1990's, before internet retail came into vogue, and without any "big box" outdoor retailer. On the other hand, the original climbing shop in Tucson, The Summit Hut, is thriving (how many stores do they have now?). The Summit Hut is a "mom and pop" store, and always had knowledgeable staff.

I lived in Salt Lake for 11 years. The "mom and pop" store there, International Mountain Equipment, has survived REI moving in, literally, right next door. The Black Diamond retail store is about a mile and a half away also. All three businesses are doing fine.

I now live in Spokane. We have Mountain Gear, Mountain Goat, and REI. The REI here carries virtually no climbing gear. My guess is that they cannot compete with Mountain Gear and Mountain Goat in that department.

As far as I know, Neptune Mountaineering is still open in Boulder, CO, and IME is still open in North Conway, NH. The climbing store in Mazama, WA, is open, as is the store in Winthrop. There is a shop in Squamish, and one in Leavenworth. There are several in Seattle, including Feathered Friends, across the street from REI. Desert Rock Sports in Las Vegas is still in business and down the street from REI.

Stop whining that technology and the damn kids are ruining the sport. Climbing continues to increase in popularity. Mountain Project, SuperTopo, et. al., fuel that.