Author |
How starry do people like their guidebooks? |
|
|
30-Oct-2014 5:13:21 PM
|
So, given that Neil has started a thread on stars which has a couple of guidebook authors chiming in, how starry do people think we should we make the new A.C.T. select guide?
It's looking like being about a thousand routes, +/- a couple of hundred. Assuming a normal distribution of quality around "ok but not great", and that we'll chop off the tail which contains the utter crap, how much should a star be worth? I was thinking something like 50% no stars, 30% 1 star, 15% 2 stars, 5% 3 stars. So that'll mean 50 routes get 3 stars, and 150 2 stars........is that too many. (btw, before you make the joke about how one 3 star route in the A.C.T. is too many, thank you but its been done already)
|
30-Oct-2014 5:46:04 PM
|
On 30/10/2014 One Day Hero wrote:
> (btw, before you make the joke about how
>one 3 star route in the A.C.T. is too many, thank you but its been done
>already)
But not in this (new) thread, someone might have missed it
|
30-Oct-2014 6:21:49 PM
|
* good (worth doing e.g. Determinant)
** excellent (a must do for the crag e.g. Hermes)
*** classic (would be considered a great climb at any crag e.g. Integral)
Star inflation is almost as bad as grade inflation. However maybe be a bit more liberal with the one star routes than the current ACT Granite. e.g. stuff like Liz would score one.
|
30-Oct-2014 7:14:38 PM
|
Personally I'd inflate the number of one star routes (saving no star for absolute crap - unless you have a crap symbol).
|
30-Oct-2014 7:50:20 PM
|
On 30/10/2014 nmonteith wrote:
>Personally I'd inflate the number of one star routes (saving no star for
>absolute crap - unless you have a crap symbol).
Good thought, however it is a select guide, so we're hoping to filter most of the utter crap out altogether. It sort of seems that if most routes in a select guide are given a star just for being in the book, you've accidently reverted to a two-star system.
I'm pretty set on pinching Rob's cobweb symbol, as there are tons of worthwhile routes around canberra which have been recolonized by the moss. They aren't climbable at present, but if they get brushed they'd be worth a star.......if we leave them out of the book it kind of dooms them to be forgotten.
|
30-Oct-2014 7:52:38 PM
|
On 30/10/2014 Estey wrote:
>* good (worth doing e.g. Determinant)
>** excellent (a must do for the crag e.g. Hermes)
>*** classic (would be considered a great climb at any crag e.g. Integral)
I guess the problem (which Simey has touched on) is that "must do" means different things to the international visitor who has one weekend ever at the crag, and the crusty local who climbs there for 20 years.
So what is the least amazing route to which you would allocate 3 stars? What's the most mediocre route to which you'd give 2?
|
30-Oct-2014 8:42:27 PM
|
I reckon Estey has summed it up. I'm guessing a place like Booroomba might have very few three star climbs but stacks of two star and one star routes. You generally cop the most criticism when you award three stars to routes, because expectations are so high. For example that multipitch combo (I can't remember the name) that you and Gareth and I climbed (as a potential candidate for Classic Climbs of Australia) would be better off getting two stars in my opinion (a must-do for Booroomba at the grade but might not classify as such a great route elsewhere).
With regard the cobweb symbol, maybe you should use it in the same way that Rob applied the hand (warning) symbol in the Point Perp guide. He always had comments after the hand symbol to explain the warning in more detail. Comments after the cobwebs symbol could be along the lines of 'A two-star route if clean. An awesome test-piece if you are prepared to do some brushing beforehand'.
|
30-Oct-2014 9:08:02 PM
|
Your percentage thing is all a bit wierd, Damo. What do you do when you get to 20% 1 star routes and start arguing over which piece of mank gets the last few stars because you want to make 30%???? If the routes are good, give them a star (or 2 or 3 as appropriate) If that means you have 27 3 star, 104 2 stars and 312.975 1 star routes, so be it.
|
30-Oct-2014 9:14:36 PM
|
sorry but "good - worth doing" doesn't deserve a star.
stars even one should be reserved for climbs that are pretty fkn good.
in any half decent crag there should be loads of climbs without stars that are "good - worth doing".
|
30-Oct-2014 9:39:00 PM
|
Don't be a daft farker Damo. Don't have any stars, just focus on good route descriptions. It is a select guide after all.
Let people make up their own minds by doing things like reading the description and looking with their eyes at the route.
Reckon the percentage thing is just lining yourself up for failure by trying to fit shit into a box that shouldn't exist.
|
30-Oct-2014 11:40:02 PM
|
put three star outlines next to every climb description, then the punter can colour them in giving them their own star rating
|
31-Oct-2014 5:17:09 AM
|
Not the question that was asked, but I strongly dislike select guides. The fact that a route is crap doesn't mean it's not worth including in a guide - knowing where such climbs are helps new visitors orient themselves, even if they have no intention of doing the route. Mikl's Blue Mountains Rock Guide suffered from this problem in spades (compounded by the copious use of painted initials all over the mountains).
Once you include all climbs, a binary system makes sense to me - no star if the climb isn't worth doing, a star if it is. That reduces a subjective relative quality assessment down to a single question: is the climb worth doing or not.
That said, I also liked the old Pt Perp guide, which ditched stars and relied on descriptions. But I seem to be in the minority there...
|
31-Oct-2014 6:38:45 AM
|
On 31/10/2014 pmonks wrote:
>Once you include all climbs, a binary system makes sense to me - no star
>if the climb isn't worth doing, a star if it is. That reduces a subjective
>relative quality assessment down to a single question: is the climb worth
>doing or not.
I dont understand the thought process behind only having a star subjective is it worth doing or not.
How the hell are you gunna have endless pub an internet debates with that system?
Look peeps, its really simple. In any other field the commentator would ask you, "On a scale of one to ten, how do you feel about it?"
And you answer, because you know how you feel.
So have a ten star system!
Everyone is a winner, even M9 gets to rate his pain of climbing over choss acurately, and onsights five stars although a good start, gets blown away in the dust.
|
31-Oct-2014 8:40:20 AM
|
On 31/10/2014 pmonks wrote:
>Not the question that was asked, but I strongly dislike select guides.
> The fact that a route is crap doesn't mean it's not worth including in
>a guide - knowing where such climbs are helps new visitors orient themselves,
>even if they have no intention of doing the route.
Including every obscure piece of choss frequently confuses people as they have to wade through pages of crap which have no relevance in helping them find their chosen route.
It also encourages people to put up crap routes.
>That said, I also liked the old Pt Perp guide, which ditched stars and
>relied on descriptions. But I seem to be in the minority there...
That might be fine if you want to read the whole guidebook in detail before choosing a route, but is a bit of drag otherwise.
|
31-Oct-2014 9:20:32 AM
|
On 30/10/2014 One Day Hero wrote:
>So, given that Neil has started a thread on stars which has a couple of
>guidebook authors chiming in, how starry do people think we should we make
>the new A.C.T. select guide?
>
>It's looking like being about a thousand routes, +/- a couple of hundred.
>Assuming a normal distribution of quality around "ok but not great", and
>that we'll chop off the tail which contains the utter crap, how much should
>a star be worth? I was thinking something like 50% no stars, 30% 1 star,
>15% 2 stars, 5% 3 stars. So that'll mean 50 routes get 3 stars, and 150
>2 stars........is that too many. (btw, before you make the joke about how
>one 3 star route in the A.C.T. is too many, thank you but its been done
>already)
~> Woohoo, ODH racks up 3,000 posts to Chocky with this one!
Some might debate the validity of some of them, but for my reading they have mostly been thought provoking...
Foreezaprolificposter, foreezaprolificposter, hiphophooray, anallthatstuff!
;-)
|
31-Oct-2014 10:08:57 AM
|
On 30/10/2014 One Day Hero wrote:
>I guess the problem (which Simey has touched on) is that "must do" means
>different things to the international visitor who has one weekend ever
>at the crag, and the crusty local who climbs there for 20 years.
>
I know you are not expecting to make your fortune in this endeavour, but who do you think is your prime buying audience as this may affect the answer to your question?
That aside, the one weekend visitor will likely go for whatever gets the most stars, whereas crusty local working their way through the climbs might apply other criteria to what they do based on what appeals to their taste.
simey wrote re handing out 3 stars;
>a must-do for Booroomba at the grade but might not classify as such a great route elsewhere
I think expecting star grades to be equally applicable across different cliffs/States/Countries is a fine concept but doomed to failure due the major flaws of objectivity and baselines. Just look at the many grading systems in use and the differences within to see how well the concept would work!
The new A.C.T. select guide is just that, so it is valid to rate stars according to the local 'ACT-normal', whatever that is! ... heh, heh, heh.
Wendy is right re giving out stars on a statistical basis is weird, and stugang is right that anything getting stars should be better than the normal for the area.
pmonks is right re having good descriptions, but I suspect ACT Select is largely rehashing what has gone before and therefore only have whatever they have to work with there.
pharmamatt & gnaguts have novel ideas, but they probably won't get a guernsey.
simey wrote;
>Including every obscure piece of choss frequently confuses people as they have to wade through pages of crap which have no relevance in helping them find their chosen route.
>It also encourages people to put up crap routes.
It is a select guide so those points are irrelevant in the first instance, but in the wider context I have found that guidebooks don't stop people putting up crap routes.
(Mea culpa yer'onour! Heh, heh, heh.)
Also in wider context, including the obscure choss routes is valid as this can be a matter of taste, and may prevent poaching and rebadging of ascents.
What do I think re original question?
~> Stick with the three star system and refine it to make it more useful/accurate, based on further ascents info as recorded in places like TheCrag.whatever, local knowledge etc.
You already have the bones of history to put flesh on, so why reinvent the guidebook-wheel?
|
31-Oct-2014 10:26:04 AM
|
If you're an international coming to Australia for a few months, mostly climbing, wouldn't you expect a 3star route at one crag to be of similar quality to another?
Those who plan to use the guidebook repeatedly can take the time to learn the system and it's idiosyncrasies; but if your market is truly the occasional visitor - then you need to consider what the bar is set at by other guidebooks.
Do current authors who regularly contribute want to offer up some % stats as to how many sales they've made in Aus;online OS etc?
|
31-Oct-2014 10:50:02 AM
|
On 31/10/2014 martym wrote:
>If you're an international coming to Australia for a few months, mostly
>climbing, wouldn't you expect a 3star route at one crag to be of similar
>quality to another?
No I would not, and I doubt any visitor would think that either based on their own experience.
A pissy little klettergarten in an obscure Austrian village isn't going to have the same appeal as, say, some of the bigger walls in the Tirol. However both areas might identify preferred routes via stars.
|
31-Oct-2014 10:58:44 AM
|
How many international climbers are going to end up in Canberra anyway?
:)
|
31-Oct-2014 12:17:11 PM
|
On 31/10/2014 simey wrote:
>Including every obscure piece of choss frequently confuses people as they
>have to wade through pages of crap which have no relevance in helping them
>find their chosen route.
Interestingly I had exactly the opposite problem with Mikl's guide - first day out there we found plenty of routes but none of them seemed to be documented. It was the only guide (that I recall) that we returned to the store to get a refund. I'm sure I'll get vilified for this, but Bede's SRC UBM guide (which we swapped it for) was infinitely better. I've been sold on comprehensive guides ever since.
>It also encourages people to put up crap routes.
What a load of crap. People will continue to put up crap routes whether there are guidebooks or not. Just look at some of the garbage in the Grampians.
>That might be fine if you want to read the whole guidebook in detail before
>choosing a route, but is a bit of drag otherwise.
Why the fsck would you be reading the guide cover-to-cover at a crag like Pt Perp?? Pick a bowel-loosening feature that you like the look of, look it up in the guide and see if it's your cup of tea or not. No one's going to ask you to write a 5,000 word literary review on the guidebook afterwards ffs!!
|