County Highpointers Difficulty Ranking Project

Voting Instructions

County high point difficulty voting data is currently maintained by Edward Earl. Votes may be submitted to him by e-mail. His e-mail address is available in his posts to the cohp e-group.

Ballots submitted are not machine-read; their data is entered into a software tool by hand. For this reason, a rigorous format is not necessary; however, voters should follow the format in the examples given below as closely as possible. In particular, the following guidelines should be observed:

The name of the voter and the category to be voted on (technical, brush, access, or overall) should be clearly specified at the top of the ballot. If the voter wishes to remain anonymous, that fact should be noted; voters that do not specifically indicate anonymity will be presumed to be willing to have their votes disclosed to others.
Votes for multiple categories should be submitted in separate e-mail messages.
Counties should be presented, one per line, in order from most difficult (at the top) to least difficult (at the bottom).
A voter who is indifferent or ambivalent about which of two high points is more difficult may indicate a tie by listing them on the same line, separated by an equal sign.
Counties should be identified by the county name. The county name should be preceded by the two-letter state postal abbreviation, and may be optionally followed by the high point name in parentheses.
If the same voter chooses to submit multiple ballots in the same category (a practice described below), the ballots should be clearly delimited by a line of dashes (--------).
The message in which the vote is submitted should contain only the vote and must not be accompanied by any other material. In particular, a voter should not submit the vote and then debate the rationale for his vote in the same message. Debating with the administrator is OK but must be done in a separate message from the votes themselves. In other words, "No campaigning within 100 feet of the polls."

Although it is hoped that every vote can be accepted, a vote may be rejected for the following reasons:

If it is suspected that the voter does not have first-hand experience with a high point involved in the vote submitted.
If it is suspected that the voter misunderstands an essential element of the project, such as:

The goal of the project
The nature of the difficulty categories

If multiple ballots from the same voter in the same category contradict each other (a situation described below)

Sample Ballots

In the example below, hypothetical highpointer Adam Smith believes that Animas Peak of Hidalgo county NM poses the worst access problem of all the ones he includes in his vote, followed by Laveaga Peak in Merced CA, and so on. Adam is unable to decide whether Stakes or Table is a tougher access problem, so he gives them a tie ranking. He wishes to remain anonymous to all third parties, so he indicates that by his name.

Voter: Adam Smith (anonymous)
Category: access
NM Hidalgo (Animas)
CA Merced (Laveaga)
CA Stanislaus (Stakes) = CA Kings (Table)
NM Sandoval (Redondo)
CA San Joaquin (Boardman North)
CA Alameda (Discovery)

This does not imply that Adam Smith believes that Animas is the most severe access problem in the USA, nor that Discovery Peak is the easiest. This ballot makes no implication as to the difficulty of any peak on the ballot relative to any peak not on the ballot.

In the next example, Bob Jones has climbed many technical peaks. He can rank the rock peaks, and he can rank the snow/ice peaks, but he isn't too keen on trying to compare a rock peak to a snow or ice peak. He therefore submits two ballots in this category, one representing rock and one representing ice, as follows:

Voter: Bob Jones
Category: technical
WY Teton (Grand Teton)
WA Lewis (Big Horn)
MT Park (Granite)
CA Fresno (North Palisade)
MT Madison (Hilgard)
CA Tuolomne (Lyell)
--------
WA Whatcom (Baker)
WA Pierce (Rainier)
OR Clackamas/Hood River (Hood)
CA Siskiyou (Shasta)
WA Yakima (Adams)

The first ballot ranks the rock peaks, and the second ranks the snow/ice peaks, but there is no attempt to compare a rock climb to a snow/ice climb.

It is perfectly OK to list the same county on multiple ballots. In the next example, Chuck Martin is sure that Organ Needle is the most difficult of the five mentioned in his vote, and Humphreys is the easiest. He also believes that Browns is harder than Signal, but he is unable to compare Hualapai to either of these. He represents all of these opinions by submitting the following vote:

Voter: Chuck Martin
Category: technical
NM Doña Ana (Organ)
AZ Maricopa (Browns)
AZ Yuma (Signal)
AZ Coconino (Humphreys)
--------
NM Doña Ana (Organ)
AZ Mohave (Hualapai)
AZ Coconino (Humphreys)

Since Hualapai never appears on the same ballot as Browns and Signal, no comparison between Hualapai and either Browns or Signal is implied. Although Organ is ranked harder than Humphreys on both ballots, Chuck's vote is still interpreted as if only one person considers Organ harder than Humphreys. Multiple ballots submitted by the same voter in the same category are not a way for a voter to unfairly give his vote more weight when the results are processed. It is OK (and sometimes necessary) to submit multiple ballots involving the same peaks, but the redundancy is ignored.

Although there is normally no implicit comparison between two counties not mentioned on the same ballot, there can be some exceptions. If a voter ranks A before B on one ballot, and B before C on another ballot, then by implication A is ranked before C.

Another use of multiple ballots is as follows. Many highpointers may be eligible to rank dozens or even hundreds of high points, and they have some ideas about how they wish to rank them, but they don't want to take the copious amounts of time to rank them all completely. Dave Johnson is familiar with a number of county highpoints in CO and CA, but he doesn't want to spend time concerning himself about any comparisons between these states. He therefore submits the following vote with CO and CA listed on separate ballots:

Voter: Dave Johnson
Category: technical
CO Dolores (Mt Wilson)
CO San Miguel (Wilson Pk)
CO Saguache (Crestone)
CO Alamosa/Costilla/Huerfano (Blanca)
--------
CA Fresno (North Palisade)
CA Siskiyou (Shasta)
CA Tuolomne (Lyell)
CA Madera (Ritter)

Segregating the ranks by state is strictly optional on Dave's part. He does this only because he is eligible to vote on many dozens of counties, but he does not want to spend hours making the cross-state comparisons necessary to interleave them all into one long ranking. He's content with state-by-state rankings, and he doesn't care much about a national ranking.

Although votes with the same county listed on multiple ballots are normally accepted, they will be rejected if the ballots mutually contradict each other. Consider the following vote submitted by George Bush:

Voter: George Bush
Category: overall
USA (Bush)
Iraq (Hussein)
--------
Iraq (Hussein)
Al-Qaeda (Bin Laden)
--------
Al-Qaeda (Bin Laden)
USA (Bush)

The first ballot ranks the USA above Iraq, and the second ranks Iraq above Al-Qaeda. By implication, the USA must rank above Al-Qaeda. But the third ballot says the opposite: that Al-Qaeda is ranked above the USA. The vote contradicts itself. A vote with this characteristic will be rejected, and the person submitting it will be asked to alter the vote in a way that removes the contradiction.

Back to the County HP Difficulty Ranking Project home page