[account_inactive]

So this is just an opinion then?

http://www.rockfax.com/databases/r.php?i=21590

I've done that problem and I don't remember it being eliminate

[Alan James, Rockfax]

It doesn't say anywhere that it is an eliminate. You also have to keep in mind that the information in the database is taken from the guidebook which has a large colour photo with the line and holds all marked. Used in combination there is no doubt where the line goes, and what the jug is, since we have them marked on the topo.

There are a number of misconceptions in the database comments up there at the moment which come from the fact that, the person making them, can't see these photo-topos. Hopefully it will become clearer when the book is available (week beginning 10 April I hope) however, I still doubt very much whether places like the Bowderstone will be to everyone's liking.

Alan

[Greg C]

Alan wrote: I have just been through the Bowderstone section of the Rockfax database with Al Wilson and the vast majority of the comments that have been lodged by Neil Kershaw and Adam Hocking and others are in fact just matters of opinion - views on stars, views on grades, and occasional views on the actual way of doing the problem. These are not mistakes.

No, but these examples in the Kentmere valley do show some signs of being mistakes...

Phantasmagorica – Spelt wrong (Should be – Phantasmagoria)

Ocelot – Obvious, on the LB topo, yet not included

The Prow Direct V8/+ (Weasel Stones) – Not included.

Negative Reality Inversion – Given V6, actually gets V5 (consensus verdict)

The Karma of Trees – Description doesn't make sense, start on the arête? This problem has never started on the arete.

Pat Kings Crack V7 – Not included

Urien of Rheged – Spelt wrong. (Should be - Orien)

Owein the Giant – Spelt wrong. (Should be - Owain)

Gwrast the Ragged – Spelt wrong. (Should be - Cwrast)

As Alan says this is only from the database, I'm sure these will be correct in the finished guide.

[Alan James, Rockfax]

Phantasmagorica - maybe a mistake, both words exist, however if the FA chose the one you mention, then it should be that.

Problems not included are not necessarily mistakes.

Grade opinions are not necessarily mistakes. You may be correct about Negative Reality Inversion, you can vote and express your opinion if you wish.

Pat Kings Crack you wrote. Presumably you meant Pat King's Crack.

Those kings are spelt as they should be. If the FA changed the name subtly when naming them, then we missed that. Apologies.

All a bit nit-picking don't you think Greg?

Alan

[Greg C]

All a bit nit-picking don't you think Greg?

Well yes I suppose you could say that, but then again how do think Johnny Dawes would have felt if he saw "Indian Face" written up as "Idian Face" or even "Idiot Face" in the Cloggy guide?

Personally I think missing problems which have been reported within the timescale of the guide's creation are mistakes, but that's just my view.

[Greg C]

Those kings are spelt as they should be

Just searched them all on the internet and found both spellings listed for all kings, and as they are my problems I guess it's probably my choice? But maybe I'm just nit-picking.

The point is even if they were spelt wrong checking to find out if they were spelt like this for a reason would be the obvious thing to do, would it not?

[tc]

I have just been through the Bowderstone section of the Rockfax database with Al Wilson and the vast majority of the comments that have been lodged by Neil Kershaw and Adam Hocking and others are in fact just matters of opinion - Alan

Some of the comments are matters of historical fact, not opinion. Did you consult Neil or Hocking? Or any other locals? Or just Al?

[Mick Ryan]

Sharma is the the second coming!

This thread adds more proof.

Mick

[account_inactive]

Sharma is the the second coming!

This thread adds more proof.

Mick

...........and this proves that you can be a bit of a knob  

[Mick Ryan]

Sharma is the the second coming!

This thread adds more proof.

Mick

...........and this proves that you can be a bit of a knob  

Can't we all, but you do understand what I'm saying or are some BC's that far up their own arses, feeding their egos, that they are blind to the most simple truths.

[account_inactive]

Sharma is the the second coming!

This thread adds more proof.

Mick

...........and this proves that you can be a bit of a knob  

Can't we all, but you do understand what I'm saying or are some BC's that far up their own arses, feeding their egos, that they are blind to the most simple truths.

Lost me there Mick.  What's a BC?  Does that refer to me?  Must do.  

Of course we can all act like knobs.  Just thought I would point out when you were.  Similar to when you helped AndiE on Cocktalk :wink:

[Nigel]

The task of producing a guide to somewhere like the Bowderstone that everyone is happy with is impossible, as it was to the Minus Ten wall at Stoney. All you can do is make your best effort.

I agree, its impossible to keep everyone happy, but its a task made easier by asking those people who might have a reason to be unhappy for their input. I think the least anyone could expect from a Bowderstone topo that they're shelling notes out for is, at the most basic level, some opinion from Adam Hocking. Coming from Keswick alone doesn't make you an expert, doing the problems does and I don't think anyone is more qualified in this respect. The fact that he hadn't obviously been contacted for your guide is a shame.  Obviously though that is just a matter of opinion...

...As are my comments on the database. However my opinions seem suspiciously similar to Adam's (who I have only met once at Carrock Fell and never at the Stone), and Dan Varian's (who I've never met). Add to this the opinions of the 20+ climbers I showed round the Bowderstone at the Lakes bouldering meet and these opinions look like approaching a consensus! Obviously though these differ from the opinions of whoever created your guide, so we could still be wrong.

To me, the main problem with making a Bowderstone guide, irrespective of eliminates, local rules, etc., is making it USEABLE. Ultimately this will be the test of your guide and is where the previous Lakes Rockfax and FRCC guides fail spectacularly (not opinion - fact! They are useless). Hopefully you have got this right. All it takes is a slight twitch of the wrist putting the lines on the topo (such as when Hollyoaks comes on) and suddenly Picnic Sarcastic V7 is now Gaskins' Problem V11!!! I should know I've had to do this and it takes a lot of care.

I only hope whoever did the topo had enough knowledge and passion to get things right.

[Nigel]

That was me btw,

Neil Kershaw.

[tc]

Not quite the kind of pre-publication review that is likely to generate huge sales, eh?
 :wink:
Well, I'll buy the Rockfax Lakes guide anyway but I am looking forward to the real one.

[Alan James, Rockfax]

I agree, its impossible to keep everyone happy, but its a task made easier by asking those people who might have a reason to be unhappy for their input.

Did you finish that sentence? It reads a bit strangely - of course we wouldn't ask people who are unhappy about giving input, however I don't think you meant that.

We are pretty satisfied with our coverage of the Bowderstone. We might not have asked everyone who has strong opinions about it, but we have got the input of the undisputed expert over the last 30 years. It won't keep everyone happy, but it is sure to give most people enough to go at.

Do you mind me asking if you are helping Greg with his guide?

Alan

[bigphil]

of course we wouldn't ask people who have are unhappy about giving input

No, that reads a bit strangely.

[tc]

Do you mind me asking if you are helping Greg with his guide?

Alan

Oh, I do hope so.

Actually, Alan, after looking at all the mistakes in the RF Lakes Bouldering database and re-reading your pissy, hair-splitting comments, and those of your buddy Mick, I think I'll save my money and spend it on a proper job.

[Alan James, Rockfax]

No, I honestly wasn't nit-picking, I still don't know exactly what he wanted to say. I think there was something missing from the end of the sentence and I don't quite get the point of it as it stands.

Nothing sinister, ignore if it is not important.

[tc]

No, I honestly wasn't nit-picking, I still don't know exactly what he wanted to say. I think there was something missing from the end of the sentence and I don't quite get the point of it as it stands.

Nothing sinister, ignore if it is not important.

Nothing missing, except perhaps a comma (optional) to help highlight the subordinate clause.
"By asking those people for their input" + "who might have a reason to be unhappy" =  "By asking those people, who might have a reason to be unhappy, for their input"  

Attention to detail, see?

[Alan James, Rockfax]

Actually, Alan, after looking at all the mistakes in the RF Lakes Bouldering database and re-reading your pissy, hair-splitting comments, and those of your buddy Mick, I think I'll save my money and spend it on a proper job.

You are entitled to spend your money on any guidebook you wish, that is the benefit of choice in this case, and I wouldn't want you to buy our guide if you weren't happy with it.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I think you might have got the wrong impression from my comment trying to clarify what Neil said. I can't think of many other hair-splitting comments I have made on this thread - Greg and I both indulged in a little trivia about the names of some ancient kings, admittedly, but apart from that, I don't think I have been particularly "pissy".

As for the "mistakes", JL and I went through all the comments we have received today and they really are mostly opinions on stars and grades. Some may turn out to be wrong by consensus, but that is the nature of publishing guidebooks.

Alan

[Alan James, Rockfax]

Okay, maybe I was being a bit dumb there.

We tend to use people who are happy to contribute, rather than people who are unhappy if you don't ask them. However the latter are politically probably more worthwhile in approaching.

Alan

[Nigel]

Cheers Tim that is what I meant, although agreed Alan it was poorly expressed!

There is at least one genuine mistake which to be fair from my comment on the database looks like a simple grade quibble. Sidekick V9 lost a huge hold a few years ago (in fact I'm sure someone told me who pulled it off, but I can't remember now?) and hasn't been reclimbed. It certainly won't go at V9, more like solid V10 hence the grade comment. Although if you know differently please do tell!

I won't pass any more comment on the worth of the Cobble topo 'til I've seen it, I think I've said enough on the database. Obviously it won't change anything now, so I'm glad Alan that you're happy with it as is, it shows good faith in whoever you got to do it.

To answer your question, yes I will be helping Greg with his guide. Mainly doing the flouncy writing bits rather than the nitty gritty of topos etc, although I will be more involved with the Bowderstone topo; the current Lakesbloc one is my work and I would want to double check any modifications, of which I'm sure there will be many. This is also why I have been so passionate (outspoken?!) with regards to the Bowderstone database - because its something I care about, and not from some anti-Rockfax agenda which seems to be the norm these days. If you were the FRCC I would have criticised it to the same level (in fact I already have in the past!).

[Alan James, Rockfax]

Thanks Neil for your reply.

At least we have now established that the two main critics on this thread - yourself and Greg; and the two on the Rockfax database - you and Adam, are all working for the rival guidebook company Ground Up.

Alan

[Johnny Brown]

Or to put it another way; they've got the best staff, but you got the guide out first, who will win in the end? Place your bets...

[tc]

Thanks Neil for your reply.

At least we have now established that the two main critics on this thread - yourself and Greg; and the two on the Rockfax database - you and Adam, are all working for the rival guidebook company Ground Up.

Alan

...and that none of the other critics do.