Display Consensus rating versus initial post rating

I fully support going to consensus ratings for all of the reasons previously mentioned. I know that many routes on MP are listed as the guide book rating, which as mentioned above may not be correct, but I also know of many ratings that were put in the MP database being intentionally sandbagged from the guidebook rating (and reality for that matter) to help give the route poster an ego boost.

Consensus ratings may not be perfect, but they are much better than what we currently have.

I haven't noticed to much difference between initial post rating and consensus rating. Most routes have the same rating, and ones that are different are not that far off, maybe +/- 1 sub-grade.

Ratings are up to interpretation, I feel consensus ratings are more accurate.

I like the consensus rating idea. If we do go to it however would suggest the original poster's rating to stay unchanged until we hit some minimum of other contributions (10, 20, not sure of exact number). Why? Consider the following:

New route posted at 5.10 and then several other climbers not familiar with the grading in an area or a type of climbing would maybe grade it much harder, say 5.11c. Probably as more climbers give input the grade would go back to the usual consensus but you could have some wild swings there in the beginning.

I have also personally seen ratings change from people that have never climbed the route but just don't like the first ascentionist. A larger # would even out these malicious grading practices too.

The one part I think will be tricky is the increments on the grades below 5.10a. This is simply because there is no 5.9c or 5.8d but it feels often that there is the same breadth of difference in those grades as from 5.10a to 5.10d, we just don't give those the granulation. Is one step between 5.10c, 5.10d, and 5.11a the same as the one step from 5.9 to 5.10a? Where to the +/- routes go?

Another example: Consider a route with the following grades reported - 5.10a, 5.7, 5.6 - would the average then be 5.8?

OK, I'm done.

David Tennant wrote:Karsten made me think why not just have route be the original grade listed and then list the variation instead of the consensus grade. So like 5.7 (+/- 1 grade) So if you see a route with a large plus or minus then you know the rating is disputed and possible to be harder or easier than you anticipate with the original grade. Of course that seems more difficult then changing which value is displayed, especially if the consensus is just a stored value.

I think your comment and Karsten's (about not going to consensus until some threshold is met) are both reasonable but are based upon a presumption that the first poster used some inherently more correct "original grade" than would the 2nd, 3rd and/or 4th consensus inputters. Remember, there is not a filtering process for original posters or "original grades"...they are no more reliable than the 1st person to add input on consensus (or the 2nd, 3rd, etc).

I do agree with others...that this is not a huge deal. I just think it is consistent with the nature of this site (wiki-style guidebook), and it leverages the power of this site to yield the first legitimate system to actually provide consensus ratings. Let's face it...guidebook authors are not out there polling 100 climbers on ratings before putting the rating in the guidebook. Most are using the feedback of a handful of friends...or in many cases, their sole opinion. MP.com can actually do this better!

When this idea first popped in my head...I actually thought similarly to Karsten's comment. After all...2 or 3 opinions is hardly "consensus"...but it is more so than just the opinion of the original poster.

To Karsten's question about calculating consensus for sub 5.10 routes...this is already done by MP.com and would not change. Further, I think your example where a route would legitimately be rated 5.6 by one user and 5.10 by another is highly unlikely...or at least very rare. I seldom have seen, experienced or heard of examples of grading variances that are more extreme than 1 number grade...most are more about whether the rating is a -/+ or a difference in 1 or 2 letter grades.

I think there are good points to both sides here, but overall I would like to see consensus rating used (with original rating noted), or at least a setting in options to allow me to see things displayed that way.

It's especially problematic when the original poster enters a generic grade like "5.12." I can sometimes get up 5.12a. I can never get up 5.12d. So the differentiation there is very important to me and the general grade of 5.12 isn't very useful.

This could be a problem in consensus grading too, so I'd like to see the algorithm picking the consensus grade always pick a letter grade or slash letter grade.

But I'll also chime in here that I'd really like to have route grade consensus AND ability to add a grade or see the grade I've given a climb in the app. Right now I can add stars or ticks, but not ratings.

No for one reason. I do not support upgrading climbs that existed prior to the acceptance of a new standard. For instance I would not support changing the ratings of a classic 5.9 test piece that was FA before the YDS added the grade 5.10. This logic carries over to the new climbs of harder and harder grades.

A new reason not to add a crag to MP...pissing about consensus

adrenalated wrote:It's especially problematic when the original poster enters a generic grade like "5.12." I can sometimes get up 5.12a. I can never get up 5.12d. So the differentiation there is very important to me and the general grade of 5.12 isn't very useful. This could be a problem in consensus grading too, so I'd like to see the algorithm picking the consensus grade always pick a letter grade or slash letter grade.

Typically if a route has the grade of 5.12 (or 5.11, or 5.10) it means it is right around 5.12b/c, same as 5.12- would be around 5.12a/b. I grade a lot of my new routes using the 11-, 11, and 11+ type ratings because it can be hard to be exact on routes below your project level.

Micah Klesick wrote: Typically if a route has the grade of 5.12 (or 5.11, or 5.10) it means it is right around 5.12b/c, same as 5.12- would be around 5.12a/b. I grade a lot of my new routes using the 11-, 11, and 11+ type ratings because it can be hard to be exact on routes below your project level.

I've noticed that, and great in theory, but not always how it goes down. Sometimes you'll rate your new route 5.12 and it ends up coming in at 5.12a, sometimes it comes in at 5.12c. Regardless of where the consensus grade ends up, it's definitely a great example of a time when the consensus grade is much more useful than the original grade posted.

I like it the way it is. If you have a comment about a the grade of a climb. Grade it and them put your comments below it. Easy. I am more interested on why a particular climb is getting a different concensus than having grades change all the time. If this change was implemented it would cause lots of trouble I think. troll city.

And why are we taking someone calling themsleves dnoB seriously? Seriously.

Just another thought to throw in the pile: Say a bunch of people grade the route and it reaches a stable consensus, then a hold brakes and the difficulty is significantly changed. It would now take a ton of further ascents and grading (or folks going back to change their assigned grade) to move the consensus towards the now correct grade. If the grade most prominently shown was the originally posted one, than all it would take is the OP or area administrator to correct it.

Aside from cases like the above, consensus makes the most sense to me. Any interesting mention of historical grading can always be made as a note in the body or comments.

M Sprague wrote:...historical grading

I am very surprised to find that the majority of posters seem to want to change ratings based on MP posters...I belive this is a very bad idea.

gription wrote: I am very surprised to find that the majority of posters seem to want to change ratings based on MP posters...I belive this is a very bad idea.

Why? MP posters are (generally) people too. The main point of MP is to disseminate accurate information about routes. Knowing the relative grade that most people feel a route goes at nowadays is probably more important than what the first ascentionist or guidebook author thought it was in 1972, though the historical grade is fun to know. Grades are just to let you know how relatively hard something is, not an objective state that needs to be preserved and protected.

I think peoples fixation on grades is counter productive. I think the consensus tool is useful. I think the user should be able to toggle it if it is changed.

gription wrote:I think peoples fixation on grades is counter productive.

Counter-productive to what?

To having an accurate idea of what level of skill they need to successfully or safely attempt/complete a climb? To representing the current state of the route if something has broken? To correcting intentionally sandbagged or fluffed ratings? Certainly not any of those things, so what in the world are you talking about "counter-productive"?

M Sprague wrote: Why? MP posters are (generally) people too. The main point of MP is to disseminate accurate information about routes. Knowing the relative grade that most people feel a route goes at nowadays is probably more important than what the first ascentionist or guidebook author thought it was in 1972, though the historical grade is fun to know. Grades are just to let you know how relatively hard something is, not an objective state that needs to be preserved and protected.

+1

Will S wrote: Counter-productive to what? To having an accurate idea of what level of skill they need to successfully or safely attempt/complete a climb? To representing the current state of the route if something has broken? To correcting intentionally sandbagged or fluffed ratings? Certainly not any of those things, so what in the world are you talking about "counter-productive"?

In their efforts to climb "correctly" graded routes people skip routes that are within their ability thinking they are not. In short folks especially Americans sell themselves short. And again if MP changes the way ratings are displayed I hope they make a toggle selection.

gription wrote: In their efforts to climb "correctly" graded routes people skip routes that are within their ability thinking they are not.

Please provide evidence of this.

Nathan D Johnson wrote: Please provide evidence of this.

...and provide evidence that MP.com users who initially post routes are somehow more inclined/capable of posting the "correct/original/infallible" rating than are those who contribute to the consensus via MP.com

In the end this is about the integrity of the ratings on this site. Do we trust one user (first to post) or the community (consensus)? Why we would choose the former versus the latter has not been explained by anyone on the other side of the discussion.