Help

Discussion: Route Grade Adjustments

  • Started: 6 weeks ago on Thu 10th Jun 2021

Public discussion This is a public discussion in World.

Adrian Yeet started this discussion 6 weeks ago.

Route Grade Adjustments

Hi All,

I have a question related to how the crag website actually functions.

My question is: When someone grades a climb and then it gets repeated a bunch of times, and the general consensus from the repeaters is that the climb is either a higher/lower grade (eg. v6 being a v4 or vice versa), does the website automatically adjust the grade according to what the majority of climbers rate it as?

If so, at what point does this happen? after 20 people have upgraded/downgraded it (is there even a number?), does the website take into account the experience of the climber etc...

OR

Does the website rely on the FA to change the climb grade? What if they no longer use the website? what would be the ethics around someone else changing a climbs grade if its clearly not what the FA stated it to be.

Anyway, hopefully someone can answer my questions. Thank you in advance

Philip replied 6 weeks ago.

Unfortunately it's not automatic. Someone has to adjust the grade manually, but it can be done by anyone who has editing privileges in the area.

There is a discussion to adjust it automatically at the GitHub issues page. Maybe this feature will be added in the future.

replied 6 weeks ago.

A difficult topic imo because not many people contribute own grade oppinions (on theCrag, at this point).

hipyhop replied 6 weeks ago.

UKClimbing.com has a great feature where successful ascensionists can vote for what grade they feel the climb is and small graphs are displayed on the climb's page.

I would love to see something like that implemented here to replace the personal grade contribution system. Unfortunately feature development doesn't appear to happen here.

replied 6 weeks ago.

hipyhop excellent idea for the crag developers.

replied 6 weeks ago.

What do you mean by "feature development doesn't seem to happen here"?

I often see upgrades and features added to TheCrag.

Tom Hodges replied 6 weeks ago.

Yeah heaps of feature development at thecrag! But I agree the graph looks excellent. I do like that the grade can only be changed by someone with editor permissions though...

replied 6 weeks ago.

I am an admin of the site. I like the graph too, however for now we are going in a different direction.

Did you know that GrAId automates the assessment of the level of difficulty of the route by looking at ascents and how strong the climbers where when they did the ascents. We also need people to log their failed ascents for GrAId to work properly. At the moment we are in beta test for GrAId and working through a few kinks.

There is a small team constantly working on theCrag. For every feature you see, there is ten times that work in the background that you do not see.

Anyway, what is cool for me to see is that half the people in this discussion are financial supporters. Ultimately this is what will determine the success of theCrag.

Mark Gamble replied 6 weeks ago.

Thx for your input Simon, & your continued hard work on the site.

replied 6 weeks ago.

Further complications in grading:

  1. Anyone can add their assessed grade when logging an ascent on TheCrag, but I agree and observe that few do. Instead they log as the stated grade and include a comment like "soft", or "only felt like 18" or "sandbag", or tick a climb to "get the grade". If people start to log different grades, then the owner, or someone else, is likely to modify the original grade according to consensus.

  2. Grades "change" with time. If the hardest climb in Aus was 20 in say 1968, a grade 10 in that year was "half as hard as the hardest climb in Aus". If in a subsequent year the hardest is 30, the 1968 grade 10 could be perceived of as 10/20 x 30 = 15, but is no longer 10 by max 30 standards. Hence older climb grades are actually greater (and harder) than new routes. Climb some 1960s Araps and Bluies routes of 6 to 12, then some modern routes of the same grade to prove this.

  3. Relative grading may be further modified by current and historical protection technology, relative boldness, and age and experience of the climber. Likewise specific abilities, body shapes, and preferences: climbers who have not or can not climb cracks, slabs, chimneys, slopers, slate, conglomerate etc. etc. will perceive such routes as harder.

Overall, I think it likely that the grades of FAs made by diversely-experienced climbers in a similar era will be comparable.

replied 6 weeks ago.

My 2c. Grades are only going to get softer and softer and softer, so a perfect system is utopic. Also (trad routes mainly and multipitches), makes sense that FA grades are harder than repeats, given topos, descriptions and facebook. What it looks like got lost in recent years, is the ability to grade according to Ewbank criteria, that includes a series of situations rather than just the technical difficulty alone.

replied 6 weeks ago.

Simon Dale thx for the information PLS continue this hard work with the site.

replied 6 weeks ago.

I would like to support the observation no 1 by Graham Dowden . This is also my impression. Here is an example where I've seen this happening today.

Climber climbed a 6b, thought it was only a 6a+, but only indicated so in the ascent comment.

Frank Evans replied 6 weeks ago.

Cris Brazzelli, I think there are a number of routes where holds break / wear, and the grade does actually increase sharply with time... But I understand your apprehensions. Simon Dale , what percentage of people actually log their failed attempts?

Bart Thierens replied 6 weeks ago.

Dominik I feel like a lot of climbers do this to inflate their results/CPR. This way he climbed a 6b instead of a 6a+ because it uses the lowest of given grade and original grade.

Chris replied 6 weeks ago.

I think an easier way to help the grAId concept be more accurate would be to have an attempts box next to the send type box when logging, because no one wants to spam the feed with dog attempts and I think more people would use a quick attempts log selection box. Not sure how hard it would be to implement as I have no technical skills but imagine it goes at about V7 😂

Erin Hager replied 6 weeks ago.

That is how it works with 8a. When you log an ascent, you can easily add in how many attempts it took to send the climb. Quite a nice feature and seems a good way for 8a to collect data, as well as for capturing your own progress.

Mark Rewi replied 6 weeks ago.

Personally I think there is definitely grade inflation and most clearly in bouldering. Gym grading leaks into the crags and there on the crag... and as a gym owner and setter once sagely informed me... people dont come back to get humiliated, they come back to feel good about themselves. The discussion was about grading and the inference clear. An example... golden streak, previously V0+ when there were no pads and ankle breaking rocks all over the landing. Now its what V2 or something with pads, a sandy landing? And no i do not think it has slimed up enough to make the difference. That said I also dont buy that 10s suddenly feel like 15s. Grades are not referenced to the max of the day but against grade standards of days gone buy. And at any rate if you believe the crag grades are exponential and a 20 isnt twice as hard as 10, but twice as hard as 19. Which certainly at a bouldering level and when assessed against grade pyramids has some merit. Graid is an ace idea but so variable. It can be bang on and all over the show... my route Kia Kaha at Bungonia is NOT 29. I was dubious grading it at 27. And Siblings is certainly not 31/2... that is open laughter terrain. Head to Nowra and it gets alot right, but again inflately Katey isnt 27... its probably just 26, Turn your eyes insane is bang on at 26, not 28 as per graid, caught in the act 31? Its an easy one at 27. The problem is most of those routes have alot of ascents (not mine but what can you say about taste?!). I quite like the graphs above. And I also think that the crag developers do an awesome job. Suits me just fine. As for grade changes... the current system seems to work fine. Every now and then you get a back and forth and eventually democratic weight of argument tends to rule the day... which I think is what consensus is meant to be about? Or maybe its just the dude with the most endurance against the masses?

Mark Rewi replied 6 weeks ago.

And no Will, Broomstick is still not 23. Although Satanic probably is only 26... just dont tell anyone!

Frank Evans replied 6 weeks ago.

Cris Brazzelli great idea.

replied 6 weeks ago.

Agree with Mark; all excellent points. I've come across some real sandbags recently, but would only change the actual grade if I'd done it clean, in a style that reflected the most modern / accepted way to do that route. I do think it's important to get grades at least reasonably right, but at the same time there needs to be some benchmarks, so that the gym crowd can't go messing with 'accepted' overall difficulty of climbs/boulders.

replied 6 weeks ago.

Hey together, great discussion!

  1. I have a question regarding the different options to add personal grades. There is the option for people with editing privileges in the "edit route" form to add "your grade" and this is shown in the upper part of the route page under "route citations". Then there is the option for everybody while ticking a route to choose a different grade in a drop down menu. These personal grades can bee seen when you scroll down the stream or show all ascents of a route. I use both things to get an impression of the community grading when i rework a sector, if the consensus is different, i change the grade and add a comment like "7a in guidebook, consensus around 7a+".

You could interpret both options a bit different, but that is subjective and i think there not really a difference and there should be only one (and more obvious) way for the community grading to reduce complexity. Nicky, Simon Dale, Ulfi: Do you agree on this (long term vision) or what is the fundamental difference between these two options?

  1. Regarding GrAld: That's an interesting idea and i am looking forward the first implementations! But wouldn't it only be working for harder routes, where people climb on their onsight/redpoint/attempt-limit? And only for routes with a lot of ticks? For what percentage of all thecrag routes is this the case? 10-30%? Maybe i am to oldschool, but to have some mysterious algorithm which says this route have this grade, i would ALSO like to have the human capability to get the info in 1 view in a little diagram like mentioned above (UKC, 27 has also a similiar one). And i guess the effort is also a bit less?

  2. The most effective shortterm change to improve community grading would be simple UX change: Like mentioned above most peolple just tick the default grade for different reasons (get the higher grade, don't dare to change grade or simply don't see it in the plenty of options). It would be much better if the ticking form for the grade would be a a radio menu simliar to the quality rating instead of the drop down menu. I imagine something like this:

Your grade suggestion:

o 7a

o 7a+

o 7b

o 7b+

o 7c

Space is enough in the ticking form and it makes the personal choice much more obvious and encourages to set a maybe different grade. Only if no grade is chosen, the default grade will be ticked. If somebody want to tick a grade much harder/easier then the options, something is wrong in the first place and the route grade should be changend manually. Or alternatively add the existing dropdown menu as 6. choice:

Your grade suggestion:

o 7a

o 7a+

o 7b

o 7b+

o 7c

o 7b

What do you think? Also here some automation could be possible, if there are enough "forced" gradings, an "average" grade could be applied automatically. Or maye in combination with GrAld

Anyway, just my ideas, thecrag is already awesome, i appreaciate the dev team and all contributors a lot! Don't let you pull down by people mocking about to less developement! To get an impression about voluntary character of the whole project, I found the Episode 11 of the Layback Podcast with the thecrag team very useful.

oliver kerr replied 5 weeks ago.

I'd like to know the balance of grades from GrAId overall. It seems to me that of the routes I look at, it is much more likely that it overgrades than undergrades. In my (anecdotal) experience, it is actually rare to find a GrAId that matched the assigned grade or is less than the assigned grade. Is that because of the areas I look at (Nowra mostly), or is that because GrAId biases to overgrading?

I'd also like to know the balance across the grade scale? Are easier graded routes more likely to be undergraded and harder routes more likely to be overgraded?

I can see that a good AI would probably be better than a human at estimating grades, given enough accurate data, but this one isn't there yet.

oliver kerr replied 5 weeks ago.

Also, I'd like to add my 'like' to the adding of a new features/updating the current feature that lets you nominate the grade you thought the climb was.

At the moment, the logbook form has the grade defaulting to the assigned grade. Very few people bother to change this - and the form logs these people as a positive affirmation of that grade. This is incorrect data. Not choosing a grade is not the same as confirming the grade.

I think the current 'grade' box should be taken away and a new box should be added - with five or six options: overgraded, a bit soft, bang on, a bit hard, undergraded, a horrendous sandbag. This allows the user to pick how hard they think the route was relative to the assigned grade - and if the user doesn't choose then it defaults to nothing rather than 'bang on'.

This shouldn't clash with the GrAId - but give it more data to work with.

For crag editors, they can still have the optioning of assigning a grade in the 'edit' route function.

replied 5 weeks ago.

oliver kerr I find grAId does work well at dragging grades down too. If you look at somewhere like Kalbarri (https://www.thecrag.com/en/climbing/australia/kalbarri/area/12155485) most people say the grading is a bit soft and this is reflected on most routes

replied 5 weeks ago.

What I like about the current system is that you actually log a route at the grade that you think it was.

If you climb a 6c but you think it was only 6b, it gets logged at 6b in your stats (if you adjust the grade while logging).

Though, I'm with Flo and oliver kerr with regards to improving UX.

Another small thing I've noticed that's confusing me while logging ascents, is the second grade dropdown for alternate grade. What's that even for? Does it have an actual use?

replied 5 weeks ago.

The second grade is for aid grade or adjectival grades. I thought I could get away with simplifying grades for ascents but we really need to duplicate the data structure of routes. Big oversight which will take a fair bit of time to rectify. It has been on my list of fixes for some time now.

Leon Schrabeck replied 5 weeks ago.

My 2c: I believe that the official grade should automatically change according to the average of grading opinions. After all What could better reflect the real grade of a route, than how "the average climber" Feels about it? I too agree that the UX changes to logging sends discussed here would be really helpful

Adrian Yeet replied 4 weeks ago.

Well I think its safe to say my questions were well and truly answered haha.

Thanks everyone

replied 24 days ago.

Just an additional food for thought for getting user feedback on grades.

I've recently started reading "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. The book describes several biases people have. One of those biases I thought might apply to this situation.

In the book K. describes it as variation of the Halo effect when grading student essays. For example, when a student writes a good first essay and a bad second essay, then the teacher is biased while grading the second essay. Because after grading the first essay, the teacher thinks of the student as a good student (writing good essays). Hence, the teacher doubts that the second essay is really that bad (because the student is already perceived as 'good student'). And as a result the second essay ends up with a better grade than deserved.

I thought that might apply similarly to grading routes. When you know that a route is supposed to be of a certain grade, would you still deviate with your personal grade suggestion as much as if you had not known the grade at all? Or would you maybe just say, well, it was a bit harder/softer and just changing by a half grade.

replied 19 days ago.

Graham Dowden wrote "Anyone can add their assessed grade when logging an ascent on TheCrag, but I agree and observe that few do."

Dominik wrote "Climber climbed a 6b, thought it was only a 6a+, but only indicated so in the ascent comment."

I share the observations and IMHO the three major drivers are:

1) Currently, assigning grades only works online, but several cliffs have no or bad mobile coverage.
Sure, I could edit after returning after a climbing day, but as I climbed e.g. 10 routes and we did sit for chat afterwards, I have difficulties to remember whether 2nd or 3rd route felt a little easier/harder than assigned grade, and by how much easier/header. I doubt I'm the only one. Sure, I could take notes after each climb and later on transfer the notes to theCrag - but how many of theCrag users take it so serious that they actually do that regularly? It could also be approached from the front end, but how many users are so organized that they know in advance which routes they will climb and do open the appropriate edit and log ascent pages before being offline? Also, both pages did not work really reliable on my mobile when doing changes offline and getting online again (e.g. sometimes pages refresh and all changes are lost, sometimes they just don't submit my changes) which reduces motivation to contribute.

Sadly, I do not have any idea how we may mitigate this considerably without considerable dev effort.

2) Current GUI is standalone not crystal clear and not that "seducing" to contribute grades. For example, how many of the users will be "sure enough" that changes in "Grade" of log ascent page are not changing the route despite the route listing's field is also named "Grade" until they did read the help? And how many users do read help pages? Same for how "Grade" of log ascent relates to "Your grade" in edit route and why they shall differ from each other.

We may mitigate this by
having "only one (and more obvious) way for the community grading" as Flo suggested, so we reduce complexity and improve understandability (BTW same for "Quality" and "Your stars"), and additionally changing the GUI as suggested by Flo "if the ticking form for the grade would be a a radio menu" combined with the suggestion by oliver kerr "logbook form has the grade defaulting to the assigned grade. Very few people bother to change this" while I do not agree to use the options "overgraded, a bit soft,"… because "a bit" is much less clear than the step from e.g. UIAA:5 to UIAA:6- and it's also very culturally dependant (in US, strong attributions like "awesome" or "great" are much more often used than by Finns or Germans - "nicht gemeckert ist gelobt genug" ).
3) How people are approached here is not exactly motivating to contribute grades:
Despite being active only a little over one year, I was several times getting messages how I was daring to enter a grade that differs from the assigned grade. Perceived tone varied from neutral to more or less taunting and arguments were varying, e.g. whether a user is "allowed" to enter a differing grade after "only" completing a route once, or "only" directly after the 1st completion of the route but not repeated ones (you know more about the route), after "only" top roping the route, after "only" an ascent with rest,… How many people want to stand this in their leisure time, and how many simply stop to contribute their individually perceived grades?
We may mitigate this by
adding a link from grade contribution to the help and there noting under which circumstances grade contributions are explicitly welcomed/allowed and under which explicitly not - all other circumstances are undefined, i.e. left for own judgement. This help content allows users to "defend" themselves against unfriendly messages and probably reduces their amount.

Mark Gamble replied 19 days ago.

Excellent post Georg! Thx for taking the time to post.

It is rather amazing that people will take other people to task, merely because the perceived level of difficulty is different than their own.

:-/

replied 18 days ago.

Here's an example illustrating "unvoluntary" grade contribution in ascents.

I've been working a local boulder problem (on an artificial boulder wall) and been logging all my unsuccessful attempts. While logging I've never bothered to adjust the grade of the ascent.

While working the problem over time, the consensus grade for the problem was adjusted from 6C to 6B+. And you can see that exactly in my logged ascents when that happened.

However, all my previous ascents remained with the higher grade, as if I had consciously chosen that grade - which was not the case.

The logic of the grade display seems to be

  • A shows your ascent grade (apparently always implicitly chosen by user)
  • B shows (current) grade of the route in case it differs from the ascent grade.

replied 18 days ago.

This comment has been removed.

Bart Thierens replied 18 days ago.

I was just passively following this discussion but what Dominik just described is a major annoyance I also have. When I don't suggest a personal grade for a hypothetical 6C problem, I don't want the system to think I explicitly think it's 6C when the grade is changed to 6B+.

There should be a clear distinction between "no opinion" and "explicitly suggesting a personal grade".

I would expect in this hypothetical case for my ticks to show I climbed a 6B+ without opinion about the grade instead of an explicitly graded 6C.

TeilzeitAbenteurer replied 18 days ago.

That is not a bug, it's a feature As far as I understand, ascent and route grades are only loosely connected: When you log an ascent, you can do so with whatever grade you want. The system only suggests you the assigned route grade as a standard, so as long as you do not actively change it, the route grades becomes the grade of your ascent. However, the other way round, your logged grade does not contribute or influence the grade of the route in any way. You an even delete the grade of ascents, if you feel so (however, the system is a bit stubborn here). As a consequence, the grade of your ascent remains the unchanged, when the grade of the route changes, no matter for what reason (consensual grade adjustment, broken hold). This can be desired (route difficulty changed after your ascent) or unwanted (grade consensus changed after your ascent).

replied 18 days ago.

Even more interesting is the connection between adjusted grades and CPR. If you tick a harder grade then the adjusted grade you will only get the CPR points for the adjusted grade. If tick an easier grade you will only get the CPR points for this easier grade.

This feels a bit inconsistent. It is a general question whether the adjusted grade is "right", then you should get the CPR points for the adjusted grade in all cases, or the users own experience is "right", then you should get the CPR points for the ticked grade in all cases.

replied 17 days ago.

I agree to TeilzeitAbenteurer's "That is not a bug, it's a feature" and see clear benefit of it: If a route becomes easier/harder for whatever reasons (more bolts, loose rock fell off,...) past ascents don't become easier/harder but only future ascents. IMHO it's neglectable that the system can't tell apart between a change in route difficulty and in grading consensus - the impact of a change from 6C to 6B+ of one single boulder problem is low considering you're doing hundrets of climbing meter per year.

@ Flo: The help exlains the motivation: The use of assigned grades in contrast to personal opinion reduces personal bias and makes rating and ranking more objective.

replied 17 days ago.

GeorgD: I also agree with the help text, that's why I pointed out the inconsistency. If the assigned grade is the objective measure, you should get the CPR points for the assigned grade when ticking an easier grade than the assigned grade. This is not the case.

replied 17 days ago.

TeilzeitAbenteurer

I'm not arguing that grades from past ascents should be adjusted. I think it's totally fine, that if I thought a climb was 6C in the past and the grade has changed over time, then it should not affect my ascent.

What I wanted to highlight - I've meanwhile added the screenshot to my post above - is that looking at my ascents, it seems that I was consciously giving a grade opinion each time. And when the grade of the route changed, then apparently also my opinion of the grade changed.

So, I believe it's a UX issue - as described above.

>The use of assigned grades in contrast to personal opinion reduces personal bias and makes rating and ranking more objective.

I was actually not aware of the above. And I can confirm Flo 's statement, that the help is not correct. See here CPR for a 6a logged as a 5c and a 6a logged as a 6b.

  • 6a logged as 5c -> 1688 points
  • 6a logged as 6b -> 1838 points

All in all, if the grade opinion is only used in each user's own CPR, then it's probably everyone's own business. If by any chance it would be used in grAId, then it might be a different story...

Franz replied 17 days ago.

Isn't it possible to fix the system? Give the people an option to chose why they want to change the grade and accordingly alter past ascents (or not).

replied 17 days ago.

Flo I see, it's not about the "biasing effect" of current behavior, but about taking the own argument serious and using assigned grade all the time

Dominik To improve UX, what shall be changed from your point of view? The display shown in your screenshot or that logging an ascent without touching the grade field writes "no information" (technically, void/null) instead "use value of assigned grade"?

TeilzeitAbenteurer replied 17 days ago.

Dominik I see your problem, but still, it is an artifact of the way thecrag handles ascents. I have a few ascents in my tick list, where the route and thus the grade changed after I climbed it. If it really bothers you, you can remove or adapt your assigned grade from your ascents. However, I don't think this on topic in this thread.

On topic: A problem I see with the approach that is taken with grAId is, that it equates number of tries with difficulty, which is not completely equivalent. On a route, which is hard to read/figure out the moves, you might need as many tries as on a route closer to your physical limit, but they are different in difficulty. The grAId algorithm would assign the same difficulty.

Julian Parsert replied 17 days ago.

I think overall the page to log an ascent just needs a general overhaul. It is, I am sorry to say that really shit and awful. A better UI would encourage user to input more detailed comments and personal grading suggestions. Take 8a.nu for example. When you log an ascent an separate popup window occurs where the UI is significantly better than the one here and encourages users to put in a grade (not with a simple drop down but with a nice UI) and comment. It also has nice UI buttons for soft and hard etc.

Also, while I like the idea of GrALd (I think I even read the arxiv paper) I feel like expecting user to input routes they weren't able to climb is quite ridiculous and a flaw in the idea itself. If I added routes I didn't manage to climb I would be on here inputting routes all the time. Also, how would I log projecting when I try a route 5 times one session? It just does not fit into how "climbing is done"

Philip replied 17 days ago.

Julian Parsert I would log 5 hang dogs or attempts

But yes I see your point. I like to see how many attempts I needed but for most it's ridiculous. And I always have the feeling to bloat up the route ascents while projecting.

replied 17 days ago.

Simon Dale: Is the number of tries relevant for grAId? Then maybe a field for the number of tries is useful? This would also save some people the tagging "#3rd go" etc.

TeilzeitAbenteurer replied 17 days ago.

You can find the paper on arxiv: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.05388.pdf

Skimming through it briefly again, it refers to "tick type" rather than number of tries. Technically something different than I mentioned before, but the issue remains the same: A harder route that is easy to read might be easer to onsight or flash than an easier route that is hard to read.

Nevertheless, they claim that the algorithm reproduces assigned grades pretty well, so it can't be too bad. That said, I have seen a few grAId suggestions from routes I know, where I would highly disagree. However, with a bit of tweaking, it might become a pretty handy tool.

replied 17 days ago.

Following this discussion, and trying to understand bits of the grAId paper, I believe the personal grade opinion when logging ascents - whether it's consciously set/changed or just implicitly set as default - only actually affects your own personal CPR.

It does not affect the actual grade of the route. It does not affect grAId.

Consequently, I do not see any strong need to change the current UX.

Edit: If the number of tries affects grAId, then probably a UX change would be good.

replied 16 days ago.

Failures effect grAId. We will have to consider number of tries, but it does not align well with the data structure. GrAId also requires date of the failed attempts, so we cannot get away from logging failed attempts as a separate ascent.

replied 13 days ago.

I am a Bayesian statistician. In principle it would be relatively easy (and necessary given prevalent climber behaviour!) to adapt grAId to account for the systematic bias in the data that many climbers are more consistent in logging their successful climbs than they are with logging hangdogs and attempts.

I have begun some computational experiments to measure the effect of this bias on the current method. It is possible to do so with synthetic data, but it is also good to have a few real data sets from climbers that record all their attempts. So if you are such a climber and want to help out, feel free to message me.

Franz replied 13 days ago.

From a UX perspective it would help if logging an ascent gave the option to simply say how many tries were needed. You could make the data more precise if you added a field for number of sessions. And a field for the date when the route was first tried. This would be one simple line:

[---] tries in [---] sessions since [–––].

If every single date of each session is important you could add a date selector for each session (Or a fancy timeline where you can drag around a slider for each session).

replied 13 days ago.

Franz I think a session-based granularity would be a lot easier to model and quite accurate. I think bundling a bunch of sessions together starts to get pretty messy.

replied 11 days ago.

Alexei Drummond Mine is pretty good for the last 3 or so years. I would guarantee all sessions are logged, individual attempt counts are probably a little low, but pretty close

replied 10 days ago.

Hey Dane Evans So if you have a session on a project and it doesn’t go, do you log a representative attempt or hangdog?

replied 9 days ago.

Yep, some version of dog, working and/or attempt is logged for any session. And there have been plenty of those.

Kezzadawg replied 5 days ago.

Alexei Drummond i log all my attempts on sport routes too if you’d like to use that data. I put how many laps/attempt per session in the notes field, and always log a hangdog on days I’m working a route before the final redpoint ascent. I also log redpoints for repeats on routes too.

Showing all 56 messages.

You are not part of this discussion.