So, recently encountered that people won't downgrade boulders because they don't want to loose points and having a 7C show up on the scorecard, looks better than for example 7B (they know it's not 7C).
My suggetion, so that people actually grade correctly, would be that even tho we downgrade something, we still receive the same amount of points as the "avarage" grade. Perhaps the avarage grade and our personal grading could be shown on our scorecard?
This would help/boost correctly grading and people would not feel "cheated" from receiving the same amount of "creds" as those who don't do this. This would also prevent people overgrading and receiving more points for the same climb. As the avarage is adjusted, so would our scorecards.
I hope you could implement something like this. Thank you in advance :-)
I would appreciate such an invention!! The problem: Sometimes Routes have two pitches, first pitch soft, second pitch a few grades harder. One should make sure that in this case not the average grade of both pitches are getting included in the calculation. On the other side, there are still a lot of old bugs existing on the website that might be more important, such as that the scores don't get updated frequently (see scores compared to the trend graph, for example in these profiles: Piotr Schab, Gio Placci, Tanguy Merard...)
currently the grade that a route has in the 8a database and on its route page is the grade that the member who created the route on 8a gave it (unless it was changed in the database). The first step would be to change this approach, and I think the best would be to take the mode of the grade distribution [= the grade that has been suggested most often]. What do you think? I would avoid going for the mean because of the 2-pitch-climbs issue that Tanka mentions (imagine a route with a first anchor 8a version, second anchor 8c, both similarly often climbed, the mean would be 8b, which is def. not right either way.) If it is in the db as 8a or 8c it would also be more obvious to look for a different route in the database, or create it if it doesn't exist. On ranking- and logbook-level, this change would in any case have no effect, but several routes would appear with a different grade in the search. Re. the ranking bugs, the rankings topic is next on our list once we finish the search improvements, and it includes bug fixes and crag rankings.
I would be very interested to hear your opinions on the rankings, the logbook stats, etc., so if it is fine with you, please write me (email@example.com) and we could have a conversation about this (:
Thanks in advance!
Hey Tanka, thanks for reporting the wrong scores in some profiles, it should be fixed now.
Hi Ben, Yessss! So far it seems like this bug is fixed finally! Thanks!! Another bug: If I press Enter on my keyboard in this forum, I get a new row before and not after the row I've written. ;)
Believe me that one is killing me too (-; It's on the list...
I just wrote you an email, hope it didn't land in your spam folder. ;)
an idea for the selection "red point" in the ranking: instead of not counting flash and os-ascents at all: better count these like red point ascents...
I would propose that points for a route are counted only at the first time a climber finishes a route. A route that we repeat several times starts to feel easy. With the current format of the point system someone who repeats each month the same route for 10 months would collect 10x the points of the grade.