Display Consensus rating versus initial post rating
|
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 couldn't agree more with this idea! |
|
+1 |
|
+1, yes, yes, yes! etc. |
|
+1 |
|
No ... no ... no ... |
|
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? |
|
It depends on what is desired: |
|
Leave original to track the history. Also, anything to avoid grade inflation which already going on it seems |
|
How about the option to change it to whichever you like in your account settings? |
|
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 |
|
Dave Carey wrote:Leave original to track the history. Also, anything to avoid grade inflation which already going on it seemsThe "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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
I see your point. I could go with the consensus. Perhaps being able to see the consensus over time would be interesting :) |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
dnoB ekiM wrote:Have you considered using the consensus rating (which you can see on a route page) as the rating that is always displayedI 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? |
|
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. |
|
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! |
|
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. |