[Johnny Brown]

Record what happened and add the amusing back-story as a footnote. Its stuff like that that makes guides readable.

[Jaspersharpe]

I'm working through chapters for the new NWB guide.

Is this something to do with sub standard late 80's gangsta rap?

[Pantontino]

I'm working through chapters for the new NWB guide.

Is this something to do with sub standard late 80's gangsta rap?

Maybe I over fixate on NWA - I once did a new route in Honley Quarry called Straight Outta Cleckheaton.

[Bonjoy]

This bit I think is more questionable and based on some false assumptions. Firstly that you 'know' someone has done a problem before.

No, that was the assumption it was based on. That's why I wrote 'know'.

Yes, but isn't that rather a straw man? Who goes round sticking their name to things they know have been done by others? I can't think of any examples of this.

I did get trumped on a couple of the first lines I ever recorded as a youth and was thus much more circumspect about 'claiming' them, not that I've ever liked the term. If you don't know that's obviously different, however as Dense said anyone claiming 6bs at Curbar is likely kidding themselves.

It depends. For one like Crispy Noodling I agree and that's why I never put my name on it, just gave it a name in keeping with the other ones on the block listed in the BMC book. But in the case of Crunchy Nut Crack I cut down a smallish birch tree that was obscuring it (figured it would not be missed given the wholesale birch clearance currently taking place in the same area), so I think it's safe to assume it was an FA.

In practical reality, whether guides are paper or electronic does not remove the question of design and how the information is presented.

I don't see something like pb.info as being a guide in the traditional sense and don't see why it should be treated as one. There should be a bar but it should be (and is) much lower.

I believe there is a sweet-spot, which most guides are currently at or around, that doesn't attempt to describe every gap-filler or variation.

I agree, though they do get it wrong in both directions on occasion. I never record stuff, even on the internet which isn't above the quality bar of current guides.

 

Current online guides seem unable to accommodate some discrimination between king-lines and cresta-logs; each is awarded a page. I don't see them offering serious competition to print guides until they address this. If folk want to fill them with twaddle then crack on, it'll only make them less usable.

They are not guides, they are interactive databases. The wheat is sorted from the chaff by people logging ascents, commenting and star rating. Online databases challenge the tyranny of received opinion on what is good. The more people use them the better they perform this function. It's sad that more people don't see it like this.

[crimp]

Record what happened and add the amusing back-story as a footnote. Its stuff like that that makes guides readable.

i have to agree with johnny here. I don't remember dry lists of first ascenters, but first ascents with epic or hilarious back stories stick.

I've never climbed or tried anything based on who did the first ascent. I just don't remember care. A good line is a good line.

[Pantontino]

I haven't asked the 'project nabber' yet but I'm guessing that he would probably say go ahead and report his FA (it did happen quite a long time ago).

The other bloke will no doubt be gutted...

As for names - I reckon the the retroclaimer should just allow the other person's name to stay. Except of course, if they are only making the retro claim because they think the name is terrible. 

[SA Chris]

Do I just let it go, or is the FA record sacrosanct?

Let it go - naughty boys should get no credit.

Favourite line from FA list "That'll ladder their fancy fucking stockings" - Boysen. (sorry - offtopic)

[Pantontino]

Record what happened and add the amusing back-story as a footnote. Its stuff like that that makes guides readable.

i have to agree with johnny here. I don't remember dry lists of first ascenters, but first ascents with epic or hilarious back stories stick.

I've never climbed or tried anything based on who did the first ascent. I just don't remember care. A good line is a good line.

I don't agree with your last comment - a good line may be a good line, but FA details (in a guide) add character and a sense of an area's history. As I've said before my pet hate is bouldering guides that omit FA details. It's only a tiny bit of info on the page but it can convey so much.

[Grubes]

Maybe I over fixate on NWA - I once did a new route in Honley Quarry called Straight Outta Cleckheaton.

... I think you deserve a medal for that makes hobson moor look lovely

[crimp]

I agree.

Point i was making was i have never chosen a line because of who did the first ascent.

[Pantontino]

Do I just let it go, or is the FA record sacrosanct?

Let it go - naughty boys should get no credit.

That was what I thought when I first heard (quite a while ago) - but some of the comments further up this thread made me think that perhaps the facts are more important than the inevitably bruised ego of one person and the slight embarassment of another.

[Pantontino]

Maybe I over fixate on NWA - I once did a new route in Honley Quarry called Straight Outta Cleckheaton.

... I think you deserve a medal for that makes hobson moor look lovely

Ha, ha - tis a rather 'special' venue, who's main appeal to me during the long hot summer of 1990 was that I could get there on the bus.

[ducko]

annoyingly a FA is a FA regardless of if the person declares it or not..
but common sense would say anything significant should surely be reported it just makes life loads easier for everyone and the facts can be documented rather than having a jumble of incorrect information and as said upsetting people?

[Grubes]

Ha, ha - tis a rather 'special' venue, who's mainonly appeal to me during the long hot summer of 1990 was that I could get there on the bus.

I have visited it once breifly tried a steep crack, sacked it off, went home and had a shower.
There was a childs bike rotting away insitu half way up a crack on a route. Plenty of asbestos too.

[a dense loner]

Jon my comment about 6b's at curbar quite obviously didn't include removing trees, walls or other stuff to enable something to be climbed

I did sway on way before c.j.d. And I would like it to be called superfuzzbigmuff

[Pantontino]

I did sway on way before c.j.d. And I would like it to be called superfuzzbigmuff

Wrong person, wrong problem - guess again Dense (in fact don't bother because I won't say even if you get it right)

[Jaspersharpe]

I cut down a smallish birch tree

CHOAD!

[Johnny Brown]

I don't see something like pb.info as being a guide in the traditional sense and don't see why it should be treated as one. There should be a bar but it should be (and is) much lower.

I never record stuff, even on the internet which isn't above the quality bar of current guides.

Okay, but why don't you practice what you preach? Or is all your stuff amazing?

They are not guides, they are interactive databases. The wheat is sorted from the chaff by people logging ascents, commenting and star rating. Online databases challenge the tyranny of received opinion on what is good. The more people use them the better they perform this function. It's sad that more people don't see it like this.

It is a bit sad but that's life. I'd submit that more folk don't use them like that because a) they aren't more use as guides and b) they 'challenge the tyranny of received opinion on what is good', i.e. they get filled with twaddle by folk who don't know any better, whether in terms of crap info on established problems, or crap new problems. OTOH I think most folk do use them for a) getting beta on established problems, and b) getting beta for areas they either don't have a guide for, or aren't well covered. Sadly most folk aren't that keen on working for free and to get them to add useful info it needs to be as part of a useful utility like a logbook. Either way if you want an interactive database to be popular, it needs to be useful first, and offer more than a printed guide. I'm not convinced the inclusion of a ceaseless tide of crap new problems is the answer.

[tomtom]

Waiting until someone else claims a good problem before mentioning your ascent strikes me as grandstanding with a side order of smug superiority.

The sort of attitude that I have found to be rife on this forum.

I think you'll find I made that comment last week. Actually.

[mrjonathanr]

Do I just let it go, or is the FA record sacrosanct?

Do you mean, should you publish something you believe is a falsehood??

[kingholmesy]

Do I just let it go, or is the FA record sacrosanct?

Do you mean, should you publish something you believe is a falsehood??

History's written by the victors guidebook writers.  I would probably lean towards letting it go.  The true FA apparently didn't/doesn't mind not being credited.

[shark]

Waiting until someone else claims a good problem before mentioning your ascent strikes me as grandstanding with a side order of smug superiority.

The sort of attitude that I have found to be rife on this forum.

I think you'll find I made that comment last week. Actually.

Last week? Done years ago youth

[Pantontino]

Do I just let it go, or is the FA record sacrosanct?

Do you mean, should you publish something you believe is a falsehood??

Never mind 'believe', I know for a fact it's a falsehood!

[Pantontino]

Do I just let it go, or is the FA record sacrosanct?

Do you mean, should you publish something you believe is a falsehood??

History's written by the victors guidebook writers.  I would probably lean towards letting it go.  The true FA apparently didn't/doesn't mind not being credited.

Think I'll ask him today, he might have changed his mind by now.

[Bonjoy]

I don't see something like pb.info as being a guide in the traditional sense and don't see why it should be treated as one. There should be a bar but it should be (and is) much lower.

I never record stuff, even on the internet which isn't above the quality bar of current guides.

Okay, but why don't you practice what you preach? Or is all your stuff amazing?

Not amazing but it doesn't have to be to get above the guidebook bar (you've obviously never been to Beeley Hilltop). I'll admit I did put a couple of fairly log probs on pb.info the other week, but only because I couldn't resist doing two things next to Fissure Boysen and calling them I've Got The Boysen and I've Got The Remedy. Obviously I don't normally climb things I don't think are worth climbing.

they get filled with twaddle by folk who don't know any better, whether in terms of crap info on established problems, or crap new problems. OTOH I think most folk do use them for a) getting beta on established problems

Generally this isn't the case (feel free to show me otherwise). In fact pb.info doesn't cover a huge amount of drossy filler things included in the BMC guides. Basically the only stuff which goes on is stuff someone is interested in enough to add. It's swings and roundabouts, obviously this bias means it includes lots of FAs, some of which are bound to be worthless. Again this reflects the fact they AREN'T guides, they are part guide and part the modern re-incarnation of new route book. The old route books also contained lots of fluff that never made it into guides, but nobody felt the need to cover them in black marker pen.
In the long run I think the site needs some moderation but it's not my site and I can't force them to enable this (currently there is no delete function).