Mountain Project Logo

Display Consensus rating versus initial post rating

Original Post
Mike Bond · · Kentucky · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 3,191

Have you considered using the consensus rating (which you can see on a route page) as the rating that is always displayed (like on the route list on the left, etc)...versus displaying the rating the initial poster used?

I think the consensus rating makes the most sense to show (especially as the number of suggestions increase, thus yielding a real consensus) versus whatever rating the initial poster utilized. The initial poster's rating is one person's opinion (or often what was in the latest guidebook). The MP.com consensus can (after lots of user ratings) become the "real" consensus.

I also think that making the displayed rating the consensus rating will motivate more users to suggest a rating...which will lead, over time, to a more accurate consensus rating.

Darren S · · Minneapolis, MN · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 3,388

I couldn't agree more with this idea!

Simon W · · Nowhere Land · Joined May 2013 · Points: 55

+1

Phil Sakievich · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 131

+1, yes, yes, yes! etc.

Gregger Man · · Broomfield, CO · Joined Aug 2004 · Points: 1,759

+1

Bill Lawry · · Albuquerque, NM · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 1,812

No ... no ... no ...

At one time I was in favor but no longer. One can currently look up the consensus rating if that is important.

Cheers!

Mike Bond · · Kentucky · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 3,191
Bill Lawry wrote: At one time I was in favor but no longer.
What changed your mind?

Why would the opinion of the original poster be better than that of the larger group?
Bill Lawry · · Albuquerque, NM · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 1,812

It depends on what is desired:

A) The grade that the most people think it is the first time on it;

Or

B) The grade it is for someone who is good at the involved technique (e.g., chimney).

'A' is what changed my mind - I'd like it to be clear I suck at OW. 'B' is likely to be the one to let me know.

Consensus is just that.

A single vote of someone willing to try without consensus is more likely to be a versatile someone. Over time, administrators can sort out the sandbags and the soft ratings if necessary.

:-)

David Carey · · Morrison, CO · Joined Apr 2011 · Points: 120

Leave original to track the history. Also, anything to avoid grade inflation which already going on it seems

Finn The Human · · The Land of Ooo · Joined Jul 2008 · Points: 106

How about the option to change it to whichever you like in your account settings?

Darren S · · Minneapolis, MN · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 3,388
Bill Lawry wrote: B) The grade it is for someone who is good at the involved technique (e.g., chimney).
This would be the more correct rating IMHO
Mike Bond · · Kentucky · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 3,191
Dave Carey wrote:Leave original to track the history. Also, anything to avoid grade inflation which already going on it seems
The "original"?
What is that?
The grade one person thought it was?
How is that "original"?

Is it "original" because I was the first to post a 20+ year old route? How...could that be original?

Is it "original" because I posted the rating of my FA?
I actually would prefer the consensus rating be displayed for my FA's. When I do FA's.....I give my humble opinion on what I think the rating is. I am sure that I am usually "wrong". The truth is...suggesting rating's for FA's is very hard. I would MUCH prefer the MP.com consensus was used...versus my initial guess.

Grade inflation is a risk...and has likely occurred in some areas. I think 8a.nu type tracking can actually add to it as one is incentivized (via "points") to suggest the highest rating. I actually think the MP.com (no points...no reason to overrate) system is not likely to lead to inflation. Sure, a guy/girl doing their first 12A is highly unlikely to "downrate" it to 11D....but if it is their 2nd....or 100th...they are probably going to rate it 11D if it felt "soft". MP.com...could actually be more likely to make grades "hard" versus inflated. After all...doesn't if feel better to call that 13A a 12D on MP.com...versus calling the 12D a 13A?

The basis of this suggestion is simply that MP.com's current method gives the initial poster more "power" than the potentially 100's of additional input givers. The consensus rating is more relevant and is more likely to reflect the mutually agreed upon difficulty.

The point is...that the rating should be the consensus and not just the opinion of the first person to put it on MP.com.
Steve Pulver · · Williston, ND · Joined Dec 2003 · Points: 460

It seems like there is more evidence that people are more likely to vote when they want to downgrade a route rather than the other way around.
I would like to see the consensus used once there are about a half dozen votes.

Mike Bond · · Kentucky · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 3,191
Steve Pulver wrote:It seems like there is more evidence that people are more likely to vote when they want to downgrade a route rather than the other way around. I would like to see the consensus used once there are about a half dozen votes.
I can kind of go along with this! I do agree that it is much more likely that one is motivated to downgrade versus inflate.

However...this statement is still based on the premise that the initial poster is somehow magically more inclined to post the "real" rating versus his/her own "downgrade" or "inflated upgrade". Remember...anyone can post a route and establish the "initial" grade. There is no reason to believe the initial poster is any more correct or ethical in his/her rating than the second rater...or the third...or the fourth...or the fifth...

I actually just had a random brainstorm idea on this today...I don't care that much about this, but I do think that the collective rating makes more sense than the "first mover" rating.
David Carey · · Morrison, CO · Joined Apr 2011 · Points: 120

I see your point. I could go with the consensus. Perhaps being able to see the consensus over time would be interesting :)

Simon W · · Nowhere Land · Joined May 2013 · Points: 55

I climb a lot of crumbly sandstone. Holds break, routes change over time. It's annoying to jump on something at the end of the day thinking it's low 11, and find out it has exfoliated to a low 12. Granted a lot of times this can be figured out by reading the comments, but I have noticed that the comments contain a lot more spray than anything else, as far as difficulty is concerned.

THIS ROUTE WAS SOOOOO EASY FOR ME, AND NOT SCARY AT ALL. ANYONE WHO CAN'T CLIMB THIS ROUTE AS GOOD AS I DO, CAN'T CLIMB BRAH

The rating consensus on the other hand normally seems pretty spot on when a route has a couple dozen or more suggested ratings.

I agree that there should be a minimum amount of ratings required before the consensus overrides whatever the initial rating is, but I think the process should be automatic.

I doubt the admins want to have to manually review every rating on this site.

Mike · · Phoenix · Joined May 2006 · Points: 2,615

I respectfully disagree with the OP, and prefer the current format. I have always thought (and used for route entries) that the initial route rating is the FA given, or 'book rating.' People can then form a consensus rating. I find it useful and interesting to know both.

If anything with the current format were to change, it would be nice to enter a route, give it the long-established rating, then give it your individual rating. For example (and this may help to prove the OP's point also) when I entered Ro Shampo I didn't think it was 12a, but that is what the guidebook said and what I was told the FA rated it, so I put it in as 12a out of respect for such things. It would've been nice to also give it my personal rating.

Also I feel the original rating could get lost if only consensus rating were used. Grade creep comes to mind.

It's certainly not a big deal either way, but I would vote to retain the original rating.

Kristen Fiore · · Burlington, VT · Joined Sep 2014 · Points: 3,383
dnoB ekiM wrote:Have you considered using the consensus rating (which you can see on a route page) as the rating that is always displayed
I read a comment on here once that changed my opinion on this issue. A "consensus" isn't true even with more people. I think people are much more likely to post a rating for a climb if it differs from the posting. This increases the likelihood that a climb's rating will fluctuate.

If I climb something rated 5.10a on MP and think it's a 5.10a I usually don't bother posting a rating. After all, it's already posted as 5.10a, why bother?
Phil Sakievich · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 131
KrisFiore wrote: I read a comment on here once that changed my opinion on this issue. A "consensus" isn't true even with more people. I think people are much more likely to post a rating for a climb if it differs from the posting. This increases the likelihood that a climb's rating will fluctuate. If I climb something rated 5.10a on MP and think it's a 5.10a I usually don't bother posting a rating. After all, it's already posted as 5.10a, why bother?
I think this IS the point. The consensus rating will only differ from the FA when several people feel the route is under or over rated. Statistically there won't be a large variation in the majority opinion. Maybe small fluctuations i.e. 10a - 10c, but nothing major like 5.6 to 5.11. And as more people rate it will become a constant consensus. Averaging smooths out the fluctuations.

Displaying the consensus rating (or giving an option to sort by consensus rating as suggested by Finn) will help people to sort through the sandbagged routes when exploring a new area without having to click through every route to check if they are really getting what they're signing up for.

Also, IMHO people would be more likely to leave their own rating if they felt like it was making more of an impact. I give routes star ratings way more often than a numeric rating, and I think it's primarily because I know it gets seen. I want fellow climbers to know when a route is incredible, and to give them fair warning when I think it sucked or it wasn't worth the effort.
Simon W · · Nowhere Land · Joined May 2013 · Points: 55
Mike wrote:I have always thought (and used for route entries) that the initial route rating is the FA given, or 'book rating.' People can then form a consensus rating. I find it useful and interesting to know both.
As it stands the initial route rating is whatever the person who added the route thought it was and I have seen quite a few cases where they don't use the rating in the book or whatever rating the FA thought it was.. Which is hard to know sometimes because FAists aren't alwahs around for comment.

If I hadn't encountered so many ratings at Red Rocks that are off I wouldn't care as much. Pretty much every route at Sweet Pain wall has a bogus rating on here.

It's cool if Layton Kor wants to call all his routes 5.7, that's not what this is about!
M Sprague · · New England · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 5,090

Emphasizing the consensus rating makes more sense to me. As a first ascentionist, I know how hard it is to give an accurate grade, especially if you have spent a month cleaning it and getting to know every nubbin minutely. If going ground up, it is going to likely be in a different condition of cleanliness etc. than when repeaters come along. Plus individual grades are so subjective.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Discuss MountainProject.com
Post a Reply to "Display Consensus rating versus initial post ra…"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.