Inconsistent hill ratings

[nigheandonn]

(Trying to keep the Donalds thread from going even more off topic by not posting this there!)

Something a bit odd is going on with the English ratings - I was having a look at Scafell, which would be my first pick for the English section of the 'new' list, and discovered that it was only 13th out of the English Hewitts (12th of the Wainwrights on the Hewitt list), with a rating of 4.00. But then when I look at the Wainwright list, Scafell is at the top with a rating of 4.85.

Is this intentional? Do people rate Scafell more highly if they're comparing it to Slight Side than if they're comparing it to Broad Crag and Ill Crag? But it's still weird that the same hills are coming out in such a different order!

[Paul Webster]

The way it works is that in order for both lists to be able to be ordered by rating, the hills that are both Hewitts and Wainwrights have a rating as each. For the Donalds we avoided the duplication but this means they can't be easily ordered by rating.

So it's just the way people have actually voted for the hills on different lists.

Do people rate Scafell more highly if they're comparing it to Slight Side than if they're comparing it to Broad Crag and Ill Crag?

It seems they do.

[nigheandonn]

Fair enough - thanks for the explanation