UKC

NEWS: Major Logbook Feature: Top Ascents Page

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC News 21 Jun 2010
[Andi Turner on Yukan II, 2 kb]We didn't want to start ranking climbers, but with so many people logging climbs at UKC on a regular basis we thought that showing the most recent top ascents (in date order, not in order of difficulty) might give people an insight in to what action has been going on in the last few days...



Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=55765
 Tyler 21 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News:

The link on the news page doesn't seem to work but the one on the lg book page does. Nice feature by the way.
 Jack Geldard 21 Jun 2010
In reply to Tyler: All links should work.

Try refreshing your browser.

Nick and I had a bit of 'editing the same page at the same time' going on there.

Jack
 Simon Caldwell 21 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News:
Elitist nonsense.
Where's the Bumbly Ascents page showing all VDiffs top-roped? Or Recent Failures showing all recent DNFs?
 Sean Kelly 21 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News: That 'Hidden' has ticked a lot! Some climber.
 Jack Geldard 21 Jun 2010
In reply to Sean Kelly: He's (or she's) the 'STIG' of UKC.

I heard that it was Mick Ryan actually...

Jack
 owlart 21 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News: I know it might upset your nice page layout a bit, but wouldn't it be more relevant to the average climber if you included all grades rather than just E5 and above? If you wantd you could split it to have a 'normal climber' and an 'elite climber' type page.
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Some say he is the fount of all statistics, all we know is...................
 owlart 21 Jun 2010
In reply to owlart: Hmm, maybe that wasn't very clear! I was thinking of 'most popular' climbs, eg. listing the top 20 most popular climbs done last week at each grade, which is obviosly a bit different from your current 'list of high-grade climbs done last week'.
 JM 21 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News: Awesome, i'm featured on the first ever top ascents page! I have finally made it and can retire happy!
 Alun 21 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Nice feature. I'm not sure about the thresholds though.

I don't want to go about claiming that E5, 7c and V9 aren't 'hard', but at the moment the volume of the easier ascents is drowning out the harder ascents.

Out of the 30 Trad ascents in 4 days, for example, only 6 are above E5 (and for only 4 separate routes).

At this rate, Andi Turner's fine ascent of an E7 (great pic, by the way!) will drop off the bottom within a couple of days.

I know you don't want to start ranking climbers, but an ascent of a tricky E7 is shurely more interesting than repeated ascents of Windows of Opportunity, which if done as DWS is not worth E5 anyway?
 alicia 21 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Good idea, thanks for the new feature!
 Jack Geldard 21 Jun 2010
In reply to owlart: Hi Owlart,

If you go to the main logbooks page: http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/ it has a list of 25 routes that are changes to logbooks today.

If you check the button "all Climbs done today" guess what you'll get...!

And it has been like this for quite a few years, so there you go - you can see a full spread of grades.

This new page is for 'Top Ascents'.
Cheers,

Jack

Jack
 Jack Geldard 21 Jun 2010
In reply to Alun:

hi Alun,

It's a toss up between having the page updating more regularly (ie having easier routes) and drowning out harder routes.

We're still experimenting, and will keep checking to see how it looks.

We have had it running on our secret server for a while ad this has been deemed the best compromise so far.

Cheers,

Jack
 owlart 21 Jun 2010
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Yes, I know about that feature, but as your 'Top Ascents' is over a week, then how about a similar feature for climbs done by us mere mortals over the last week?

Just listing climbs over E5 does rather give the impression that anything under E5 just isn't worth mentioning.
 Tyler 21 Jun 2010
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

How abut E5 onsight leads only, anything less is pretty pointless?
 @ndyM@rsh@ll 21 Jun 2010
In reply to owlart: On a page called top ascents it isn't.
 owlart 21 Jun 2010
In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll: I'm suggesting a complimentary page to go along 'Top Ascents', which lists the most popular climbs done over the last week irrespective of grade, that way the elite can look at the 'Top Ascents' page, and the rest of us bumblies can look at climbs we can actually attempt! Only having a page for E5+ climbs gives the impression that the site is for elite climbers only.
 JM 21 Jun 2010
In reply to owlart: The reality is E5 is no where near elite anymore. In fact the grade bands of the top ascents is unbalanced. Climbing V9 and Fr7c is way harder than onsighting E5. It should be refined to E7 onsights and above, Fr7c onsights and above and redpoints of 8a+/8b and above and would give an interesting insight into UKC users operating at this level.
 Tyler 21 Jun 2010
In reply to owlart:

> Only having a page for E5+ climbs gives the impression that the site is for elite climbers only.

One glance at this forum would soon disabuse them of that idea.
 Sash.C 21 Jun 2010
In reply to JM: Agreed
 Tyler 21 Jun 2010
In reply to JM:

> It should be refined to E7 onsights and above, Fr7c onsights and above and redpoints of 8a+/8b and above and would give an interesting insight into UKC users operating at this level.

But how many people operating at that level have (not hidden) log books on here? i'm quite happy to see E5 ascents logged as, although its been a punters grade for 20 years or more, its still not that common. We've just had a great week of weather in the middle of summer and there are still only a handful of ascents if you take out the redpoints etc.
 pmurdy 21 Jun 2010
In reply to Tyler: I'm guessing if you only had E7 and above on the list then there would be very few ascents to fill up the page with.
 Tyler 21 Jun 2010
In reply to furiouspaul:

Yeah that's exactly what I was trying to say but rambled a bit!
 Chris the Tall 21 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News:
Have to say I think there would be many better ways of improving the logbook system - hell, I've put in loads of new feature suggestions and been told there was no budget for the logbooks.

Don't get me wrong, I think the logbook system has been a great success, but it's not that easy to navigate your way around it, for example.

At least you may stop the muppets who click "tick all" on crags like Stanage and Burbage (you could always get rid of the button)
 pmurdy 21 Jun 2010
In reply to Tyler: O whoops. I replied to the wrong person. But yeh I agree. If it was above E5 then it would get updated much less often.
 Gambit 21 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News: Great idea, good to see what us normal people are up to as well as the stars. Sounds good to say that as I made it onto the list with my first E5 since 1989! Timing or what.
 Ramon Marin 21 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News:

What about the ice & mixed climbers? We don't count as "top rated" when we tick something hard I suppose

A nice feature anyways
 Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator 21 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News:

I think this is a fantastic new feature!

One of the great by-products of the on-line Logbooks is being able to find out when obscure trad routes have had an ascent. This doesn't matter one jot for sport routes, but for tricky or bold trad routes (particularly on mountain rock), which are often dirty and unloved, having some chalk to follow can make life so much more enjoyable.

However, I have been known to take this one step further. On more than one occasion, I have contracted people who have noted in their Logbook, or on the Forums, that they have recently done a difficult route to which I aspire, in the hope of teasing out some useful information or beta. You know the sort of thing - where the crux is, how you do it, what is the crucial nut (or indeed the full rack).

I do this because following chalk, or having reliable up-to-date information or beta, makes things easier. And at my age I need all the help I can get.

I should perhaps take this opportunity to apologise to those innocent folk who have found themselves on the receiving end of such unsolicited approaches (particularly Tom Briggs), as they receive a series of polite but forceful e-mails, demanding ever more information. But I have generally made good use of the beta, so their time and trouble wasn't entirely wasted.

I should also apologise to those who I will be contacting in the future. You may not know me, but I assure you I am harmless. I just want a bit of help to realise my ambitions before it is too late, and this marvellous new page will make it so much easier for me to track you down.

So, bravo to UKC, and for those who might suppose my tongue is lodged firmly in my cheek, you don't know the half of it....

Cheers

Neil
In reply to various:

We are just trying this out at the moment. The thresholds do seem a little low but that was what gave us better turnover of ascents appearing. We can easily adjust this if the reallt top ascents appear to be drowned out by "another E5".

The system only takes account of lead ascents done in good style.

We do have more improvements planned for Logbooks but this wasn't really a Logbook feature so much as a Low Down news page feature.

We are getting close to spending a bit of money on Logbooks and we have been doing a lot of work under the bonnet on the Rockfax and UKC databases in an attempt to co-ordinate them better.

In reply to Owlart:

As Jack pointed out, you have always been able to see what routes have been done in recently in the Logbooks system. If you are referring to a page which documented the routes which have had the most ascents over the last week, then I am not sure this is really useful data. I can't see why knowing that 25 people had done Flying Buttress on Stanage in the previous week would influence whether or not I contemplated it. The thing about the hard routes is that the really top ascents are very newsworthy, and the E5s are of interest as Neil has pointed out. Ascents of Flying Buttress are not of any great significance except perhaps for the person who climbed it.

Alan
 Rich Kirby 21 Jun 2010
In reply to Neil Foster:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> I think this is a fantastic new feature!
>
> One of the great by-products of the on-line Logbooks is being able to find out when obscure trad routes have had an ascent. This doesn't matter one jot for sport routes, but for tricky or bold trad routes (particularly on mountain rock), which are often dirty and unloved, having some chalk to follow can make life so much more enjoyable.
>
Totally agree. Thanks to UKC logbooks I am gleaning some useful info on a route that I'd love to have a bash at on sight. Its notorious for being dirty and having fixed gear of questionable nature. Recent activity in the logbooks certainly gives me a better idea of how clean the route is and in what state the fixed gear is in. I feel confident enough to give it a shot ground up,o/s with this knowledge. I can only see this being a good thing, having savvy knowledge on how clean the route is and whether its fixed gear is (currently) in doubt or not.
 Joe Costello 21 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News: Wow I made one of the top ascents! That's made my day!
 Jonny2vests 21 Jun 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Nice one UKC. I personally think you've got the balance about right.

In reply to owlart, I can;t see much merit in seeing which were the most popular routes over a given week, I could guess that.

And limiting it to E7 and above is also daft.

I might just manage to haul my ass onto the list before the years out...
 Jonny2vests 21 Jun 2010
In reply to Neil Foster:

Don't sweat it Neil, any time you need some beta for Dream of White Horses, I'm here
 Joe Costello 21 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News: Quite an amusing feature dudes! I like it but I suspect people will very soon start to abuse it...
In reply to UKC News:

I think it's worth pointing out that there are probably a lot more climbers 'ticking' these grades than appear on UKC's tick lists. A lot of climbers operating at these levels don't even look at never mind post on UKC.

What ever was wrong with the tick in the guide book and not the public domain, we don't care.
 JimBee 21 Jun 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
> If you are referring to a page which documented the routes which have had the most ascents over the last week, then I am not sure this is really useful data. I can't see why knowing that 25 people had done Flying Buttress on Stanage in the previous week would influence whether or not I contemplated it. The thing about the hard routes is that the really top ascents are very newsworthy, and the E5s are of interest as Neil has pointed out.

IMHO a page containing the Most Popular routes of the last week (on a rolling 7 day basis) would be of general interest. It would be useful to some people to work out where the crowds / queues are with the intention of avoiding them, increasing enjoyment by climbing at quieter areas, even reducing erosion maybe. But also for some people who want to see which crags / climbs are getting the most ascents. I don't think it should feature as a news item, but simply as a page in the logbook area.

The top ascents (by grade) is a good idea and I'm pleased to see this introduced. It is probably news worthy but I can't say it would interest me as a weekly read for two reasons, 1. neither myself nor any of my friends are operating at that grade and 2. a number of people who are hide their profile and most of us use proxy names anyway.

Thanks
 Joe Costello 21 Jun 2010
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.: Well worth pointing out! I thought I was one of the best climbers in the UK this week for a few while there
In reply to Joe Costello:

You may well be, but there are not too many top climbers in the UK with UKC tick lists or profiles.
 Michael Ryan 21 Jun 2010
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

You are half right. Yes many don't have a logbook, but over 10,000 climbers in the UK do.

Yes only a small percentage of climbers who visit UKC (the articles, news, logbooks, photos etc) post on the forums.... over 2,000 climbers do post each month, the rest read the forums and visit many other popular areas of the site.

We are averaging between 10,000 to a high of 16,000 individual climbers visiting the site a day, lows at weekends. Chances are if you go climbing in the UK you visit/use UKC. Why wouldn't you, it offers so much? Even the opportunity to have a good gripe.

There's nothing wrong recording a tick in a guidebook, nor is there anything wrong by recording your routes climbed online, you choose whether to make them public or not.

> we don't care

That the royal we or are you a spokesman for some group?
In reply to Joe Costello:

And those that do probably have such obscure online names that you would never know.

Just keeping it real.
 Michael Ryan 21 Jun 2010
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:
> (In reply to Joe Costello)
>
> or profiles.

Birkett, Steve McClure, Stevie Haston and Dave MacLeod top enough for you.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Royle!

Not doubting you're figures but of all the guys I climb with probably only 1/10 post, look at or even are aware of UKC. But I am a 45 year old scrote.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Never heard of them! they been t'dale?

 Morgan Woods 22 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News: Sounds like a good feature and provides an incentive to trainharder . Just hope it doesn't get clogged up with those unwilling to put their name to a tick.
 Jonny2vests 22 Jun 2010
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> Royle!
>
> Not doubting you're figures but of all the guys I climb with probably only 1/10 post

They might not post, but in terms of logbooks, I reckon UKC is a pretty good straw poll for the state of the nations climbers. Anyway, you're mainly a boulderer no? Maybe your mates are too? Its bound to be less relevant.
Serpico 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
> (In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.)
> [...]
>
> Birkett, Steve McClure, Stevie Haston and Dave MacLeod top enough for you.

None of whom use the logbook feature so won't be represented on the 'Top Ascents' page.

 Alun 22 Jun 2010
In reply to jonny2vests:
> I reckon UKC is a pretty good straw poll for the state of the nations climbers

Based on what?

Mick can trot out all the stats he likes, but the reality that the only thing the logbooks feature can report is the information entered into it.

For example, in July I'm coming back to Britain with a very strong Belgian friend who I intend to point at a hatful of E5s and maybe even a couple of E6s. Who knows, I may even scrape up an E5 myself. Assuming all goes to plan, we'll have a great week, but the only record of it will be in our heads, and maybe a photo or two. Neither of us have any intention of recording our exploits on UKC!

On a more obvious level, Mick states proudly that Birkett, Macleod etc. all have profiles. That's great. But do they update their logbooks as often as another friend of mine, who obsessively and humbly records every single attempt (whether onsight, flash, dnf, rp etc) on every route he ever does?

I don't mean to criticise the logbooks per se. I think that they are an excellent feature, for all the reasons that Neil Foster listed above. And I like this new feature, despite disagreeing rather with the thresholds.

But I agree with Nidderdale boulderer - I know too many climbers who don't update their logbooks, so I find it difficult to take any of the stats seriously!
 TobyA 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Alun:

> But I agree with Nidderdale boulderer - I know too many climbers who don't update their logbooks, so I find it difficult to take any of the stats seriously!

Plenty of top climbers seem to religiously keep up their 8a scorecards though, so I don't buy the argument that all the uber-wads are zen masters/mistresses, totally at peace with the universe and who never get the urge to compare with others to see who has got the longest errrr.... scorecard.
 Michael Ryan 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Serpico:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> [...]
>
> None of whom use the logbook feature so won't be represented on the 'Top Ascents' page.

I never said they did. That was in response to Francis's mumblings.

The logbooks are what they are and so are the top ascents. They simply show what those with logbooks have climbed and logged. The top ascents simply show the top ascents in those logs.

It's others, usually critics, who are making assumptions about what that data represents.

No one at ukc is.

Carry on. I have a long drive ahead.

M
 Alun 22 Jun 2010
In reply to TobyA:
> Plenty of top climbers seem to religiously keep up their 8a scorecards though

Of course, including the wad-belgian chap who I referred to earlier.

But your point is irrelevant. Adam Ondra updates his 8a profile regularly, whereas Chris Sharma doesn't have one. Thus, if you just go by the 8a logs, Golpe del Estado, 9b, has only had one ascent. Which is an error rate of 50% ! (or more, if I've missed news of somebody elses ascent).

The point is that stats gained from logbooks (whether UKC or 8a) are pretty much nonsense unless everybody records their climbing to some minimum detail level. And that doesn't happen.
 Michael Ryan 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Alun:
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
> [...]
>
> Based on what?
>
> Mick can trot out all the stats he likes, but the reality that the only thing the logbooks feature can report is the information entered into it.

Exactly. I'm glad you get it.

 Alun 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Alun:
May I emphasise that "stats gained from logbooks are nonsense".

You can get a lot of other very interesting information from logbooks, as Neil Foster said above.

I don't want to come across as criticising the logbooks themselves - just the extractions of statistics from them!
 Michael Ryan 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Alun:
> (In reply to TobyA)
> [...]
>
>
> The point is that stats gained from logbooks (whether UKC or 8a) are pretty much nonsense unless

Well I thought you got it!

The stats record what is logged. Don't read anything more into it. They do of course have many other uses as Neil Foster outlined above and provide great first hand info about a route.

In reply to Alun:
> I don't want to come across as criticising the logbooks themselves - just the extractions of statistics from them!

I think some of the statistics that can be derived from UKC Logbooks are very accurate and very revealing about climbing trends in the UK.

Most popular crags, most popular areas, most popular grades, common climbing style.

This page is fascinating - http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/graphs.html

Alan
 Tom_Harding 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Alan can you do the same for the training diaries and have a league table of whos putting in the hours?

Just a thought...
 Alun 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Sorry Alan, maybe it's just me being in hardcore statistics mode.

But the page you link to is nothing more than a guess. It's a good guess, and undoubtedly the best guess we've got, and I don't deny it's very interesting.

But you have no evidence at all to claim that it's "very accurate". You have no accurate idea what proportion of ascents are logged, and you have no accurate idea of whether loggers are faithfully recording their activites (does the E1 climber record the HS warm up he's done 10 times in the past?)

But I'll shut up now, because I don't want to come across as a whinger. In general I think the logbooks feature is great, and despite my complaints, I do think the graphs page is interesting

 TobyA 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Alun:

> But your point is irrelevant. Adam Ondra updates his 8a profile regularly, whereas Chris Sharma doesn't have one.

Didn't he used to? But anyway Chris is obviously reaching zen master soul climber status. I bet the Swedish chap with the non-Swedish name and a penchant for didgeridoos and 'ethnic-styling' doesn't have one either!

> The point is that stats gained from logbooks (whether UKC or 8a) are pretty much nonsense unless everybody records their climbing to some minimum detail level. And that doesn't happen.

I think you missed my point which was in response to the oft cited (by FH amongst others) "all these hard climbers don't care about UKC and won't publicises their waddishness" looks less noble when you notice how many people have 8a scorecards.
 GDes 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Rich Kirby and Neil Foster:

A third agreement from me, it's great to see what's been getting done, and get info on routes that you might not otherwise have had a go at. For me, that's the main purpose of filling in the logbook. I've done 3 routes recently that I've avoided for a while, but hope my info will encourage people to get on them. Especially true with sea cliffs and some of the stuff on scafell that rarely gets done.

So Rich, what's the route?!
 Coel Hellier 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

> This page is fascinating - http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/graphs.html

So who claims to have climbed E5 in 1950, and what route?
 Michael Gordon 22 Jun 2010
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Alun)
> I think you missed my point which was in response to the oft cited (by FH amongst others) "all these hard climbers don't care about UKC and won't publicises their waddishness" looks less noble when you notice how many people have 8a scorecards.

I think that's more of a European thing though? It's definitely true that most hard climbers won't record their ascents on UKC. For example, very few of the significant number of grade VIII ascents that take place every year are logged. Same with E8/E9 ascents.

 Michael Ryan 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Michael Gordon:

Many of the hardest ascents are logged on the news page.

There will be and always has been hard and significant ascents that go under the radar or only known by a few. I think that's a good thing. I like the unquantifiable, the unknown, the unaccountable...it makes our pursuit different from mainstream sports.
 Alun 22 Jun 2010
In reply to TobyA:
> I think you missed my point which was in response to the oft cited (by FH amongst others) "all these hard climbers don't care about UKC and won't publicises their waddishness" looks less noble when you notice how many people have 8a scorecards.

I understood you and I agree with you

But I think it's irrelevant to the discussion. If we could say that "90% of all ascents are faithfully recorded in the logbook" then we could say that that logbook is roughly 90% accurate. But we don't really have any idea what percentage of ascents are recorded in a logbook. You're guess is as good as mine.

For the record, my guess, based on what I know from my climbing friends habits, is that it's only around 50% at the very upper limit, and probably much lower. But that's a guess - my point is that we don't have that number!
 Michael Gordon 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Alun:
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC)
> But you have no evidence at all to claim that it's "very accurate". You have no accurate idea what proportion of ascents are logged, and you have no accurate idea of whether loggers are faithfully recording their activites (does the E1 climber record the HS warm up he's done 10 times in the past?)
>

It depends in what way you want to use the stats. For example the average grade over the years gives a very interesting insight into what a typical climber might operate at, in this case:

grade II/III, Hard Severe, F6a+, V1

The 'hardest' ascent for the year is less useful and perhaps meaningless as you get folk logging Rhapsody, Hurting etc for a laugh. UKC users are a good sample of the climbing population outwith the hard / cutting edge ascents which are not a good sample as too few of these climbers participate in this way.

 Alun 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Alun:
and "your" guess, of course, is equally valid :S
 Michael Gordon 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
> (In reply to Michael Gordon)
>
> Many of the hardest ascents are logged on the news page.

Yes, as news stories which of course are far more interesting than stats!

>
> There will be and always has been hard and significant ascents that go under the radar or only known by a few. I think that's a good thing. I like the unquantifiable, the unknown, the unaccountable...it makes our pursuit different from mainstream sports.

I agree.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I thought you had a long drive Michael?
You'll be late!
 Ian Patterson 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Alun:
> (In reply to TobyA)
> [...]
>

> But I think it's irrelevant to the discussion. If we could say that "90% of all ascents are faithfully recorded in the logbook" then we could say that that logbook is roughly 90% accurate. But we don't really have any idea what percentage of ascents are recorded in a logbook. You're guess is as good as mine.
>
Don't agree with that at all - if 90% of ascents were logged it would be likely that trends shown were nearly 100% accurate representation of British climbing (the 10% not recorded would have to be very heavily skewed to impact those trends). Do you think that since only (say) 1% of TV viewers habits are surveyed then TV viewing figures are only 1% accurate? Obviously this sample is self selecting so its difficult to know how representative it is, and therefore how meaningful any trends are but without evidence to the contrary I'd would expect that they might provide some sort of realistic view of what sort of climbing is taking place in the UK though with a fairly high level if uncertainity particularly at the extremes.
 Alun 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Ian Patterson:
> if 90% of ascents were logged it would be likely that trends shown were nearly 100% accurate representation of British climbing

Okay yes but you're missing the point:

we have no real idea whether the % ascents recorded it is 99% or 1% !!

Even if you make an educated guess, you were correct in pointing out that it's self selecting.

Can you even tell me what % of active logbook users actually fill their logbooks correctly, including warm-ups, dnfs, every single rp attempt etc.? We have absolutely no idea.
 Michael Gordon 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Alun:

I don't think one has to know a figure of total population size to be able to extract a meaningful and representative sample from that population. If the number of people using the logbooks is high enough the sample WILL be an accurate representation, provided one doesn't place too much credence on extreme values.
 Rampikino 22 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News:

I use the logbook a lot and keep it up to date. I quite like the stats, but I can't really see any benefit to this particular page other than a bit of envy really. I'm unlikely ever to feature on it for starters!!
 Alun 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Michael Gordon:
> If the number of people using the logbooks is high enough the sample WILL be an accurate representation

not if the population is self selecting. Take a look at

http://ricardofb.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/who-is-mr-8anu/

that first graph says that the median 'hardest ever sports grade' is around 7c.

Do we really think that, worldwide, the median hardest sport grade ever climbed by all climbers is 7c?

Of course not. That's the median grade for people who choose to enter their data into 8a.nu.

I don't deny that the UKC logbooks are probably the best window we'll ever get into the trends of UK climbing.

But all they really tell us statistically are the trends among people who choose to use them.
 Michael Gordon 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Alun:
> (In reply to Michael Gordon)

> Do we really think that, worldwide, the median hardest sport grade ever climbed by all climbers is 7c?
>
> Of course not. That's the median grade for people who choose to enter their data into 8a.nu.
>

I take your point but 8a.nu is going to be less representative of climbers worldwide than UKC is of climbers in the UK. Surely a website calling itself "8a" is going to be geared towards sport routes at the harder end of the spectrum? UKC by comparison would seem more geared towards the average climber.



 Alun 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> UKC by comparison would seem more geared towards the average climber.

Yes, I agree.

I realise I'm being a bit of an annoying pedant about this, but the scientist in me is complaining over claims of 'accurate' data

 Boy Global Crag Moderator 22 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News: Onsighting a gnarly E5 is surely more of a 'top ascent' than headpointing a soft E7, but this new feature makes no obvious distinction between headpoint and onsight/groundup. Inevitably the existence of this feature will create a motivation for climberes to try to get onto it, by fair means or foul. It's current setup is surely a driver of bad style and ought to be tweaked to avoid this or scrapped altogether.
 LakesWinter 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Boy: Would you suggest onsight/ground up only for the trad ascents then?
 Michael Ryan 22 Jun 2010
In reply to MattG:
> (In reply to Boy) Would you suggest onsight/ground up only for the trad ascents then?

<<<<<<<Can 'o worms alert>>>>>>>

But some say you are right as they consider headpoint ascents not traditional.

But wasn't Puttrell a top roping headpointing bastard?

 Jonny2vests 22 Jun 2010
In reply to Alun:
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
> [...]
>
> Based on what?
>

Based on the fact that there's nowt better. Thats why I used the term 'straw poll'. And who gives a toss about the actual truth - as that is unattainable.
 Rich Kirby 23 Jun 2010
In reply to GDes:
> (In reply to Rich Kirby and Neil Foster)
>
> So Rich, what's the route?!

You may recall Ro and I bumping in to you and Tim earlier in the year...well its not that far from there! A friend did it this weekend and changed the second syllable to path

 jkarran 23 Jun 2010
In reply to Boy:

> (In reply to UKC News) Onsighting a gnarly E5 is surely more of a 'top ascent' than headpointing a soft E7, but this new feature makes no obvious distinction between headpoint and onsight/groundup. Inevitably the existence of this feature will create a motivation for climberes to try to get onto it, by fair means or foul. It's current setup is surely a driver of bad style and ought to be tweaked to avoid this or scrapped altogether.

If getting their name in pixels for a day or two is enough motivation for someone to get out and redpoint a soft E5 then why shouldn't they? I can't see the appeal myself but I'm sure whatever their motivation the process will be enjoyable.

jk
 UKB Shark 23 Jun 2010
In reply to jkarran:

Boy wasnt saying that there was anything wrong in striving to get on the (not)ranking table per se. However he contends the way it is set up encourges headpointing over onsighting
 jkarran 23 Jun 2010
In reply to shark:

I understand what he's saying. I suppose my first point (that I didn't really express) is that I think this little feature on a website is unlikely to drive a serious change in British climbing culture. My second point (which I expressed poorly) is who gives a toss if it does, folk will still be doing something they enjoy.

jk
 DrGav 23 Jun 2010
In reply to JimBee:

I like the Most Popular routes (rolling 7 days basis) idea, but wondered if we could customise our view of Top Ascents, eg dropping the threshold to 7b, with an upper limit of 8a, and across the past year only.

Given how it's hard to please everyone, i guess making the feaure personalisable would be great if technically possible.

Great to see Logbooks evolving as it is a superb resource.

Cheers
Gavin
 UKB Shark 23 Jun 2010
In reply to jkarran:

Publications and now websites influence opinions about a range of things including style. Ticking a big number is a standout motivation but the style that number is ticked in is at least as important in indicating how big an achievement the ascent was. However, the list doesnt discriminate between redpoing/headpoint or onsight. Therefore the best onsights will struggle to make it onto the list. As an example 8a.nu with respect to sport climbing heavily weights its points scores towards onsighting. Yes this is of little interst to the majority of climbers including you but then it is set up to highlight and showcase some but not all of the ablest climbers. What they are seen to be up to will in turn have an influence on those taking an interst in the feature. I agree its not of itself going to drive a serious change in British Climbing culture. Sometimes that will occur by a major event but other times by the accumulation of lots of smaller things.

 Tom Briggs 23 Jun 2010
In reply to UKC News:

I still think a really useful feature would be to list the 'latest climbs ticked' at the top of each crag page in the logbook.

This would be a quick way of checking the recent activity at a crag and would be particularly useful for mountain crags/crags that take a long time to dry etc.
 Simon Caldwell 23 Jun 2010
In reply to Tom Briggs:
An excellent idea!
 Boy Global Crag Moderator 23 Jun 2010
In reply to jkarran:
> (In reply to shark)
>
> My second point (which I expressed poorly) is who gives a toss if it does, folk will still be doing something they enjoy?
>
> jk

I give a toss, if it means that the classic E5 I want to get on has a toperope hanging down it.

I do think that if UKC is to have a Top Ascents list, it should be set up such that it does what it says on the tin.
 UKB Shark 23 Jun 2010
In reply to Boy: I give a toss, if it means that the classic E5 I want to get on has a toperope hanging down it.


Another scenario is a motivated keen youth overstretching themselves on a headpoint to get in the limelight with messy consequences.
 Jon Read 23 Jun 2010
In reply to Boy:
Why not just include the style of ascent in the top ascents list?
Of course, it's not going to help when you don't include that yourself!
 jkarran 23 Jun 2010
In reply to Boy:

Where except perhaps the great slab at Froggatt of a weekend is that even remotely likely to be a problem

And anyway, why would it be any better or worse to be waiting behind someone taking their time onsighting it?
jk
 jkarran 23 Jun 2010
In reply to shark:

> Another scenario is a motivated keen youth overstretching themselves on a headpoint to get in the limelight with messy consequences.

Or in an no less silly fantasy world where onsight-only lists on a website provide significant motivation to take risks:

Keen youth decides to forgo the toprope inspection in order to get a 'clean' ascent and see his name in pixels... fails with messy consequences.

jk
 Michael Gordon 23 Jun 2010
In reply to Jon Read:
> (In reply to Boy)
> Why not just include the style of ascent in the top ascents list?

If you click on the route name in the list it will show the log page for that route where the climber will probably have selected the style of ascent they did it in.

 UKB Shark 23 Jun 2010
In reply to jkarran:

Good point.
 Boy Global Crag Moderator 23 Jun 2010
In reply to Jon Read: For a start there was not Top Ascent list when I logged stuff. In many cases the ascents were years ago and I could remember exact details so opted to fill the log in in a minimalist way.
My point wasn't about me being on or off said list anyway. I'm more inclined to go hidden now.
 Boy Global Crag Moderator 23 Jun 2010
In reply to Boy: I mean couldn't not could
 UKB Shark 23 Jun 2010
In reply to Jon Read:

Better still have the cut-off point as: E5, F7c and V8 onsight and E7, 8a+, V10 worked (or where the style of the lead hasnt been included).

Assuming that is technically possible of course.

 Tyler 23 Jun 2010
In reply to shark:

> Better still have the cut-off point as: E5, F7c and V8 onsight and E7, 8a+, V10 worked (or where the style of the lead hasnt been included).

I'd agree with those benchmarks
 DrGav 23 Jun 2010
In reply to Toreador:

I'd back that idea up!

The current cut-off is set as E5, F7c, V9 and above. It considers all ascents that are led or soloed in good style including 'clean after practice', but not 'with falls'.

The problem is that many people just upload their ascent as 'Lead' with no style and these will get considered. Obviously this may result in some misleading ascents being displayed on the Top Ascents page, but it isn't a major issue I don't think.

We will adjust the thresholds if it seems that they need it.

Alan
 Jon Read 23 Jun 2010
In reply to Boy:
It wasn't meant as a dig at you, just pointing out that many people (including yourself I noticed) don't bother to fill in the style of ascent for routes, or boulder problems, so calling for style cut-offs wouldn't really work?
 Offwidth 23 Jun 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

You can't avoid some problems (a few people lie if nothing else). I'd support Boys basic point though, the list should be fit for purpose. I also agree with him that an E5 onsight is significant (more than headpointing a soft E7) and maybe splitting out the qualification grades for prepractice and ground ups/onsights for new ascents would help (and encourage reporting from the better climbers out there).
 GDes 24 Jun 2010
In reply to Tom Briggs: That's a great idea. WOuld make me less nervous about driving from Bristol to the Lakes this weekend.

Rich: I need more clues. What's the first syllable? Not Ghost?
In reply to GDes:

Cool... just noticed this and I'm on the list too!
 Offwidth 30 Jun 2010
In reply to Paul Phillips:

Must be wrong then
In reply to Offwidth:

Shat it Clarky! :oP
 Offwidth 30 Jun 2010
In reply to Paul Phillips:

I've just realised there is a photo of you in the new Froggatt guide on a V8. I take everything back
 Andy Crome 30 Jul 2010
In reply to UKC News:
Bump, this really isn't working is it?
Top ascents for trad cover July 28th to the 30th,
Top ascents for sport muster to July 20th to the 30th.
The bouldering one seems to be working (as it's out of the grit season?) - June 29th to July 30th.

At least narrow the margins to cater for a month of ascents?
Let's all just agree to agree that E5 and 7c aren't that hard anymore.
Serpico 30 Jul 2010
In reply to Andy Crome:
> (In reply to UKC News)

> Let's all just agree to agree that E5 and 7c aren't that hard anymore.

...and 6b is approaching a rest?

 UKB Shark 30 Jul 2010
In reply to Andy Crome:

Blame Steve Crowe - he had an unfeasibly brilliant day at Gordale on Weds.

Don't be too harsh on him. Its senility.
 Hugh Cottam 30 Jul 2010
In reply to shark:

56 routes in a day, largely in the E5 to E7 range. Impressive!

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...