[Footwork]

Why does it matter if someone puts their problem on UKC, even if you think it's shit. Does it actually cause any measurable harm at all? Is that it causes you annoyance something for you to work on rather than for them to change?

I am not saying I have the answers but I struggle to find an objective, reasonable issue with someone putting a "crap" problem on UKC

The problem is first ascentionists tend to have an inflated view of how good their problems are and UKC allows people to add new entries and assign stars to them. The starring system works in guidebooks because there is consensus; it doesn't work when the FA and their gang of mates decide that although their 'first ascent' is a filthy eliminate it actually 'climbs really well' so is worthy of 3 stars. It also just clogs up the logbooks and prevents people getting a clear look at the crag. If people must add their shit eliminates they should definitely be under a separate heading labelled as such.

I do tend to agree that if a crag is unrecorded theres little damage done by recording it for posterity and to give locals exploration options etc. Adding pointless eliminates to established crags is what the above is aimed at.

It's amazing how many new 'problems' have been added lately. Obsessive logging (which is me included!) seems to make people reluctant to walk away empty handed. I try not to care but the amount of inflated starring is annoying.

Here's an example that annoyed me https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/caley_crags-540/one_squirrels-641886?lgn=113303

This starts halfway along an established problem. Surely either get good or GTFO? The old Caley guide describes the problems as those you can do and those you can't 
 

[SA Chris]

Giving it a V grade irks me more.

[36chambers]

Here's an example that annoyed me https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/caley_crags-540/one_squirrels-641886?lgn=113303

I can't decide what's worse, claiming it in the first place, naming it "One squirrels", or that fact the moderator hasn't done anything about it yet

[Footwork]

Here's an example that annoyed me https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/caley_crags-540/one_squirrels-641886?lgn=113303

I can't decide what's worse, claiming it in the first place, naming it "One squirrels", or that fact the moderator hasn't done anything about it yet

I feel like deleting it at this stage would be too mean to those who have logged it. I'll just remove the stars and put in a bonfire section.

[Fiend]

My advice would be not to travel from Sheffield to a quarry in Somerset on the strength of a UKC logbook entry alone. 
Most entries of the type we are talking about are accompanied by pictures helpfully showing what bits of tree root you can pull on, which foot ledges are out of bounds and whether or not you can use the top of the waist high crag for hands.

very good.

Yeah the discussion seems to have moved on to slagging of shite on UKC. No doubt it will inevitably end up discussing mediocre Yorkshire scrittle eliminates as usual 

Edit: And One Squirrels does look like a better and more logical line in the topo picture 

[andy moles]

To go back to the OP:

I think leaving stuff 'for the intrepid to rediscover' is fine, but it seems daft for a guidebook writer to go out of their way to do so.

Friend of Fiend's view: "Each time you do that with a problem you might give 10 people the simple pleasure of doing that problem you've described and documented, but you might prevent one or more people having the much deeper, more exciting, long-lasting and intimate pleasure of discovering that problem for themselves and climbing it as for the 'first time'" seems contrived - deliberately withholding information to preserve some imagined reward for someone in future. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't say I necessarily get greater reward from finding new problems than doing established ones - it's just different, and it's certainly special if they're really good, but what I enjoy about exploration is the possibility of finding gems, not doing any old thing simply to have been the first. So the notion of prioritising that one explorer's experience over ten others' seems shaky to me.

And if it is part of the same question as resisting the temptation to retro-claim, it's giving the future claimant a weirdly engineered experience - they may not know that at the time, but if I found out afterwards that my 'discovery' was well known about but people had withheld the information with the express purpose of making me feel more intrepid or something, it would definitely put a retrospective taint on the experience.

[remus]

And if it is part of the same question as resisting the temptation to retro-claim, it's giving the future claimant a weirdly engineered experience - they may not know that at the time, but if I found out afterwards that my 'discovery' was well known about but people had withheld the information with the express purpose of making me feel more intrepid or something, it would definitely put a retrospective taint on the experience.

Im not sure I agree with this, though I guess it depends on how the info is withheld. Going to the grinah stones example from a few months ago (crag in the peak where approach details are available but problems haven't been recorded), I feel like you're going in to it knowing that what you're climbing may well have been climbed before, but you still get that fun creative aspect of imagining lines and not knowing any grades. I think there's value in that, and I think that documenting such a venue would definitely detract from the available experience (especially for the weak willed like myself who can't help but browse guidebooks/ukc).

I think it's also a question of balance. In an area like the peak where crags and problems are recorded in meticulous detail, leaving something for people who want something a little more exploratory is a worthwhile goal. I don't think this matters so much in areas where there's a lot more scope for development.

[SA Chris]

"Each time you do that with a problem you might give 10 people the simple pleasure of doing that problem you've described and documented, but you might prevent one or more people having the much deeper, more exciting, long-lasting and intimate pleasure of discovering that problem for themselves and climbing it as for the 'first time'"

Also, chances are it may never be found or climbed, and disappear under a carpet of moss / leaves / mud never to be climbed again, thus denying the one or more the potential notional pleasure.

[andy moles]

Im not sure I agree with this, though I guess it depends on how the info is withheld.

For sure, the example you give is different. I was thinking in terms of Fiend's premise about 'could you keep your mouth shut about retro-claims', which would suggest people thinking they were discovering the place for the first time.

[Fiend]

Actually it was "could you resist claiming in the first place?". But the same question could also apply to retro-claims...

[andy moles]

Actually it was "could you resist claiming in the first place?". But the same question could also apply to retro-claims...

You did mention both at the end of the OP.

[Fiend]

LOL, so I did. That was a long time ago and my brain is pretty addled.

My friend tasked me at the time: "Go out and find some esoteric pile of bollox, do a genuinely good problem on it, but don't claim it nor get any evidence of it".   I did try to do that and did find a good line, and then ended up accidentally going back to the crag with, errr, the local guidebook author 

[andy moles]

My friend tasked me at the time: "Go out and find some esoteric pile of bollox, do a genuinely good problem on it, but don't claim it nor get any evidence of it".   I did try to do that and did find a good line, and then ended up accidentally going back to the crag with, errr, the local guidebook author 

I find I care less about these things with time. Just after I've done something, I'm strongly compelled to share the information, but if I do forget or not get around to it for some reason, after a while it doesn't seem so important...

Having said that, if I saw someone bigging up some duff thing I'd half forgotten about on Insta as their awesome new find, I'd probably be roused... 

[Wellsy]

Why does it matter if someone puts their problem on UKC, even if you think it's shit. Does it actually cause any measurable harm at all? Is that it causes you annoyance something for you to work on rather than for them to change?

I am not saying I have the answers but I struggle to find an objective, reasonable issue with someone putting a "crap" problem on UKC

The problem is first ascentionists tend to have an inflated view of how good their problems are and UKC allows people to add new entries and assign stars to them. The starring system works in guidebooks because there is consensus; it doesn't work when the FA and their gang of mates decide that although their 'first ascent' is a filthy eliminate it actually 'climbs really well' so is worthy of 3 stars. It also just clogs up the logbooks and prevents people getting a clear look at the crag. If people must add their shit eliminates they should definitely be under a separate heading labelled as such.

I do tend to agree that if a crag is unrecorded theres little damage done by recording it for posterity and to give locals exploration options etc. Adding pointless eliminates to established crags is what the above is aimed at.

Is that a problem? So what if people put stuff on there? What is "clogging it up?" Why is it it a problem for you if someone puts a problem you dont like on UKC? Have you tried it? Even if you did is that you didn't like it relevant? Why should it not be there?

I am sure that you can come up with reasons but essentially they'll come down to "I don't like it" and to that I ask, without any clear answer myself, is that a problem with the person putting up the climb? Or is it a problem within us.

[Wellsy]

Also I don't find "it separates the wheat from the chaff" particularly convincing. Says who? And since when did all the stuff that's been on there for years and repeated loads become good? There's loads of absolute shite that have been printed in guidebooks for decades and nobody complains about because of what?

I think people should be honest; they don't like people putting up problems they don't think are good on UKC because they feel that that climb/climber doesn't have the requisite pedigree to be doing FAs. Quite frankly I feel like sometimes the mockery of people's enthusiastic FAs verges on the childish. And I've seen some that don't appeal but if I've an issue with them being recorded that's for me to self-examine more than anything.

[remus]

Is that a problem? So what if people put stuff on there? What is "clogging it up?" Why is it it a problem for you if someone puts a problem you dont like on UKC? Have you tried it? Even if you did is that you didn't like it relevant? Why should it not be there?

The problem is it can be hard to tell how good a crag genuinely is. For example, if you look at https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/forest_rock-1171/ you'd most likely get a different impression from what you'll experience if you go there.

[Jack Andrew]

I agree with Wellsy. I don’t think there is a problem with recording new things, especially if someone has taken their time to explore and fine something, cleaning it and climbing it, they have every right to record it if they want.
I think throwing shade on that isn’t really a great thing to do.

I personally wouldn’t record an eliminate as a separate problem, if I logged it on UKC I’d probably just put it in my personal notes, but there are plenty of old exiting eliminates even printed in guide books, just look at Crack N Pockets on the trackside boulder at curbar, the guide book says it’s 6b+, c if you don’t use the seam and 7a if you eliminate the seam and the crack. How is that eliminate any different to someone recording an eliminate now? And why should one be printed on paper and others be scoffed at?

[andy moles]

Is that a problem? So what if people put stuff on there? What is "clogging it up?" Why is it it a problem for you if someone puts a problem you dont like on UKC? Have you tried it? Even if you did is that you didn't like it relevant? Why should it not be there?

I am sure that you can come up with reasons but essentially they'll come down to "I don't like it" and to that I ask, without any clear answer myself, is that a problem with the person putting up the climb? Or is it a problem within us.

Also I don't find "it separates the wheat from the chaff" particularly convincing. Says who? And since when did all the stuff that's been on there for years and repeated loads become good? There's loads of absolute shite that have been printed in guidebooks for decades and nobody complains about because of what?

I think people should be honest; they don't like people putting up problems they don't think are good on UKC because they feel that that climb/climber doesn't have the requisite pedigree to be doing FAs. Quite frankly I feel like sometimes the mockery of people's enthusiastic FAs verges on the childish. And I've seen some that don't appeal but if I've an issue with them being recorded that's for me to self-examine more than anything.

Maybe it does come down to 'I don't like it'. Not liking something sounds to me like a good enough reason to say that you don't like it. As for 'is it a problem within us?', I think you're being overly philosophical. Several people have given pretty legit reasons for why they don't like it, reasons perhaps that you don't agree with, but ultimately all preferences for anything are internal. Does that mean we shouldn't express them? In this case it's not something that's actually very important or consequential, so there isn't a high price on giving an opinion.

Your follow-up post has a couple of dubious assumptions: first, that there's no problem with dross that's been there for longer, and secondly (and more offensively) that it's believed the climbers in question don't have the 'pedigree'. The second may well be true in some cases, but claiming that that's all that's going on is frankly bullshit.

[teestub]

The problem is it can be hard to tell how good a crag genuinely is. For example, if you look at https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/forest_rock-1171/ you'd most likely get a different impression from what you'll experience if you go there.

I’ve not been, wait are you telling there’s not 23 3 star (and therefore of a quality notable at a national level) problems in that little cave? 😂

[Wellsy]

Is that a problem? So what if people put stuff on there? What is "clogging it up?" Why is it it a problem for you if someone puts a problem you dont like on UKC? Have you tried it? Even if you did is that you didn't like it relevant? Why should it not be there?

I am sure that you can come up with reasons but essentially they'll come down to "I don't like it" and to that I ask, without any clear answer myself, is that a problem with the person putting up the climb? Or is it a problem within us.

Also I don't find "it separates the wheat from the chaff" particularly convincing. Says who? And since when did all the stuff that's been on there for years and repeated loads become good? There's loads of absolute shite that have been printed in guidebooks for decades and nobody complains about because of what?

I think people should be honest; they don't like people putting up problems they don't think are good on UKC because they feel that that climb/climber doesn't have the requisite pedigree to be doing FAs. Quite frankly I feel like sometimes the mockery of people's enthusiastic FAs verges on the childish. And I've seen some that don't appeal but if I've an issue with them being recorded that's for me to self-examine more than anything.

Maybe it does come down to 'I don't like it'. Not liking something sounds to me like a good enough reason to say that you don't like it. As for 'is it a problem within us?', I think you're being overly philosophical. Several people have given pretty legit reasons for why they don't like it, reasons perhaps that you don't agree with, but ultimately all preferences for anything are internal. Does that mean we shouldn't express them? In this case it's not something that's actually very important or consequential, so there isn't a high price on giving an opinion.

Your follow-up post has a couple of dubious assumptions: first, that there's no problem with dross that's been there for longer, and secondly (and more offensively) that it's believed the climbers in question don't have the 'pedigree'. The second may well be true in some cases, but claiming that that's all that's going on is frankly bullshit.

I don't think it is tbh, I think people's attitudes towards stuff that gets put up is somewhat shaped by their perception of who did it

Sure you can say "I don't like it" I'm just saying that a lot of the objections just come down to a general emotional reaction  rather than a logical reason why the recording of whatever climb is a bad thing.

In fact in this thread we've seen people saying that if they saw someone showing off their FA on Instagram they'd get annoyed by it, to which I say with the greatest of respect okay, so? Who cares?

I posted what I thought might have been an FA on this forum and tbh it was a pretty unpleasant experience, not what I expected at all. These days I'm a bit tougher and I'd just tell some people to spin on my middle finger if they don't like it, but I definitely feel like some people are more objecting to keen newcomers than they are the actual problems. Just my feelings, of course.

[Jack Andrew]

but I definitely feel like some people are more objecting to keen newcomers than they are the actual problems. Just my feelings, of course.

I completely agree with this.

[Droyd]

I wonder if some of the grumbles on this subject could be ameliorated somewhat if first ascentionists didn't give things stars, and generally communicated a bit more along the lines of 'I did this, it might be shit but go and have a look if you fancy'. Maybe that's too British but I guess it's at least in line with how bouldering developed, and the opposite of the hyperbolic nonsense that gets tossed around on social media. In the context of UKC logbooks that could mean that there isn't the option for FAs to decide on stars and these instead are based on voting; admittedly that'd open things up to abuse (bin voting problems because you don't like the FA) and you might still end up with the FA's mates giving things three stars either sycophantically or because they don't know any better, but it would also get us away from individual subjectivity and towards consensus on quality. And those two issues could be solved somewhat by making votes public, as I do think that some people get a bit weird. I've even spotted what I'm pretty sure are instances of people consistently voting hard for the grade on their own FAs...

I guess that, as with difficulty (first of the grade therefore best climb ever, etc. etc.), it's quite hard to be objective about quality when you've invested so much in a first ascent - and that ranges from people purposely under-starring their own problems because they're aware of this issue of subjectivity, right through to people that have had the time of their life coming up with shite eliminates and not recognising that others will likely have a less fulfilling experience. As Remus notes, though, it's pretty tedious (in a deeply first-world kind of way) to have to figure out which camp a crag falls into when everything has either zero or three stars, so making this process democratic would be good to my mind.

[andy moles]

I definitely feel like some people are more objecting to keen newcomers than they are the actual problems.

Well, if it makes any difference to your feeling on this, some of the most egregious generators of duff eliminates that I'm aware of have been around a lot longer than I have!

I'll admit it's a little annoying when people with very narrow experience make big claims about the relative quality of their output - I don't bear them any animus though, and to my mind it's a separate (though obviously related) issue.

[Andy W]

I guess there is an inherent tension between the initial subjective experience (of a FA) and the secondary objective representation of that experience. As I get older and grumpier and see the transition of bouldering from something obscure, wilful and creative into a full blown sport, I tend to see documentation as one of the problems.

Edit; but I do of course indulge in documentation myself.

[Fiend]

I think people should be honest; they don't like people putting up problems they don't think are good on UKC because they feel that that climb/climber doesn't have the requisite pedigree to be doing FAs.

Now that's a top steaming mound of horseshit if I ever smelled one! The problem and the ascentionist are two separate entities, it's perfectly possible to like and respect a climber and despair at some of the dross they claim, or equally possible to think that someone is a massive choad-scraping but fully respect the validity and quality of the climbs they put up.

Remus has adequately demonstrated the wheat vs chaff issue (which might be a genuine reason for some of the objectors, unlike your guesstimate of their reason!).