[shark]

Whoops didnt realise this was up already.

Bubba suggested that this could be a useful future resource but only if people can find the information within it.

If we can establish a naming protocol in the topic title so that it is more easily searchable in the future:

e.g.

[area] [crag] [grade] problem name

so topic titles would look something like:

[Peak] [Burbage West] [7a] My Amazing new Problem
[Dartmoor] [Hound Tor] [6b] Hand Shredder
etc

At least that way people could use the search facility to easily find stuff for the area they're interested in. Using "[Peak]" instead of "Peak" would help narrow the search down ever further and not just return everything mentioning Peak throughout the forum.

[Bonjoy]

Sounds sensible. Could be a bit long winded though if you are reporting several things at several crags at once.

[shark]

Sounds sensible. Could be a bit long winded though if you are reporting several things at several crags at once.

Yes I saw that you had done a few. Once the backlog is out the way hopefully single problems will get reported as peeps do them. We can alter subject titles retrospectively so if a name isnt thought up or grade unsure then it can go in as [Peak] [Burbage West] [7a/ish] No name yet and potentially be altered afterwards

[dave]

[potentially] [useful] [but] [looks] [ridiculous].

How about having a seperate keywords field?

[GCW]

Is it too much to have area sub-topics in the New Problems folder?

Or would the wiki be a place to record new problems?
Although I still can't log into it   

[lagerstarfish]

[potentially] [useful] [but] [looks] [ridiculous].

How about having a seperate keywords field?

 

is it too difficult to have a separate "tags" list, like what they does on Vimeo?

[Somebody's Fool]

[Dartmoor] [Hound Tor] [6b] Hand Shredder

Slightly off-topic but: has anyone from west of Bristol ever posted on this site?

I think Chad Greedy did once. And I've got a hazy memory of Chris Sharma backing up cofe's 8a credentials too.

[Bubba]

Is it too much to have area sub-topics in the New Problems folder?

There would potentially be hundreds of sub-forums, it'd be navigation hell.

Or would the wiki be a place to record new problems?Although I still can't log into it   

Possibly, it works quite well on ukcaving.com.

I'll have a look at the login issues today.

Regarding keywords/tags - nice idea but quite tricky to implement if you mean having a tags field alongside the post.

The only reason for wrapping things in [] is so the search engine will be able to find them. I suppose such tags could just be put inside the post instead of on the title line but this would be harder to enforce and everyone would just start using their own tags.

[Bubba]

Maybe a return to the UKB new problems database, circa 2001

[GCW]

Is it too much to have area sub-topics in the New Problems folder?

There would potentially be hundreds of sub-forums, it'd be navigation hell.

I didn't mean have sub-topics of sub-topics.  It'd only be 9 or so:  Peak/Yorks/Lancs/Lakes/North East/Mersey/Scotland/Wales/South, plus all the others I've forgotten.

Might be worth having a new routes list on the Wiki anyway, maybe backdate it when info is available too.  If you fix my log in, I'll have a look 

[dave]

Maybe instead of searching we just ask slacklinux to find it? I know he loves it when people don't google.

[slackline]

Or would the wiki be a place to record new problems?
Although I still can't log into it   

There is already a dedicated site in development for Peak District for boulder problems, there's Yorkshire Grit for that area, various other area specific wiki's/problems too.

Perhaps just linking to them when posting in this sub-forum would make sense as opposed to duplicating the effort to record things in multiple places.

Maybe instead of searching we just ask slacklinux to find it? I know he loves it when people don't google.

  Work is unfortunately getting busier these days 

[Bubba]

To be honest, with things like r-mans site (as slack--line has just pointed out) getting up to speed there's no point spending too much effort in creating a comprehensive new route recording facility as that will do it much better.

This is just an problems news dump.

I think the wiki would be good for less specific info than actual problems, eg crags/access/best weather/local info/etc

[GCW]

Fairy nuff, I was thinking more along the lines of a FA list rather than a comprehensive record.

Quite often on YG etc, minor problems aren't recorded and FA details aren't given.  It's often a bit vague in the NW too.

[slackline]

Fairy nuff, I was thinking more along the lines of a FA list rather than a comprehensive record.

Quite often on YG etc, minor problems aren't recorded and FA details aren't given.  It's often a bit vague in the NW too.

Feedback for the site that they include fields for this?

I think the wiki would be good for less specific info than actual problems, eg crags/access/best weather/local info/etc

I thought this too, and the other week wrote a Venues section to the Wiki.  I stuck in random places I could think of/remember there being bouldering at (not been to them all, but from magazine articles etc.), but didn't start writing anything or transferring links across.  Just stuck in a template for each of the areas.

Main problem with wiki's is that a degree of consistency is required and with multiple people with different levels of experience in using them and ideas on how things should be structured they can get really messy.

[GCW]

There's no harm in having information in places, as long as it tallies.
May still have a look at the logistics of it, though.  Even if it's only for Lancs (and who'd read that anyway?  )

[uptown]

Quite often on YG etc, minor problems aren't recorded and FA details aren't given.  It's often a bit vague in the NW too.

I'm sure r-mans analytical mind will mean the Peak database is fairly accurate and comprehensive, yet YG isn't - much due to administrative controls. The beauty of a forum style new problems section is that anyone can put forward their new (shuffling) masterpiece without (too much) ridicule, or censored exclusion. Yep, you'll get a lot of insignificant crap mixed in with the goodies, but then the user can chose their own quality margins rather than the web-site owner, and the web-site owner can cherry pick for their site depending on their own criteria, and save awkward non-acceptance of said new (shuffling) masterpiece.
I bet none of this makes sense, and I've gone off on a Dawes. 

[Bonjoy]

R-man (and Andy and Gareth’s) site allows direct entry of info by users so is much more likely to become fairly comprehensive over time as it doesn’t rely on one or a few people doing all the legwork.
However what peakbouldering.info doesn’t do at the moment is record details of when or who did a new problem, so searching for what has been done recently at any given location would pretty much involve looking through the whole crag and  already knowing the names/descriptions of all the old problems. I dare say they might include a field for this at some point. Seems a shame they didn’t have this from the outset though, as retro-updating of info is far less likely to happen if this functionality is added, than if it had been there all along.

[slackline]

There's no harm in having information in places, as long as it tallies.

The beauty of a forum style new problems section is that anyone can put forward their new (shuffling) masterpiece without (too much) ridicule, or censored exclusion. Yep, you'll get a lot of insignificant crap mixed in with the goodies, but then the user can chose their own quality margins rather than the web-site owner, and the web-site owner can cherry pick for their site depending on their own criteria, and save awkward non-acceptance of said new (shuffling) masterpiece.
I bet none of this makes sense, and I've gone off on a Dawes. 

Yes, but both of these are reliant on a) people recording them in at least one place; b) synchronising between these places.

It would be a real ball-ache to transfer data in YorkshireGrit, PeakBouldering, South lancs Bouldering etc. etc. etc. to the Wiki and ensure its kept up to date.  Far simpler to use the Wiki as a conduit to these dedicated sites (IMO at least).  I don't see this section of the forums will likely be "cherry picked" by the site-owners (unless you're inferring that the flow of information is reversed and it is the area specific sites that cherry pick the problems reported here, but then that would in part defeat the object of trying to have comprehensive coverage).

Yes, there are lots of regular posters in these here forums, but its only myself and GCW who have written anything on the wiki (which I expect sees very little traffic in comparison to the forums).

However what peakbouldering.info doesn’t do at the moment is record details of when or who did a new problem, so searching for what has been done recently at any given location would pretty much involve looking through the whole crag and  already knowing the names/descriptions of all the old problems. I dare say they might include a field for this at some point. Seems a shame they didn’t have this from the outset though, as retro-updating of info is far less likely to happen if this functionality is added, than if it had been there all along.

I reckon they'll get that sorted at some point.

[Bonjoy]

Don't get me wrong, it's only a minor criticism of what is a hugely commendable effort. I know the site hasn’t been ‘officially’ launched and as such the functionality is work in progress. Mostly I’m just very psyched that people have put in the effort to do such a site.

[Andy B]

R-man (and Andy and Gareth’s) site allows direct entry of info by users so is much more likely to become fairly comprehensive over time as it doesn’t rely on one or a few people doing all the legwork.
However what peakbouldering.info doesn’t do at the moment is record details of when or who did a new problem, so searching for what has been done recently at any given location would pretty much involve looking through the whole crag and  already knowing the names/descriptions of all the old problems. I dare say they might include a field for this at some point. Seems a shame they didn’t have this from the outset though, as retro-updating of info is far less likely to happen if this functionality is added, than if it had been there all along.

My list of glory includes FA's (to the best of my knowledge), so it shouldn't be too hard to add these for most grade 7 and 8's if Gareth adds the field to problems.

[Bonjoy]

Good stuff. I'll add what I can if/when possible.

[granticus]

Slightly off-topic but: has anyone from west of Bristol ever posted on this site?

YEP.

[dave]

What we need is someone to periodically compile information on new problems into some kind of all-weather standalone unit that you could carry around with you, all for a small fee.

[slackline]

What we need is someone to periodically compile information on new problems into some kind of all-weather standalone unit that you could carry around with you, all for a small fee.