Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A question for the scientists #2

Expand Messages
  • mountaingoatnewton
    Me again.. Those of you working in academia, and publishing in the peer-reviewed literature will no doubt have heard of the Hirsch Number (or H-Index). For the
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 15, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      Me again..

       

      Those of you working in academia, and publishing in the peer-reviewed literature will no doubt have heard of the Hirsch Number (or H-Index). For the rest of you, if you are interested look here

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_number.

       

       It occurs to me that this is a neat way of comparing the productivity of members of our bagging community. With apologies to Hirsch, I propose to define the P-Index as follows:

      .

      A bagger has index P if he has climbed P mountains with prominence of at least P, and the other mountains he has climbed (Np− P)  have a prominence no more P each.

       

      With apologies to our Imperially minded friends, the number is more meaningful for most of us if P is defined in meters. I used the data on peakbagger.com to calculate the P-Index for a couple of our illustrious colleagues:

       

      Bob Packard P-714m

      Ken Jones P-674m

      Andy Martin P-633m

       

      It is an indicator of lifetime activity and gets progressively harder to improve. To illustrate, my own P-Index is P375m but since this includes 18 peaks between P375 and P399, to improve my P-Index to P400m I will have to climb 43 peaks with at least P400m. To improve to P450m I will have to climb 135 peaks of a least P450m. Bob´s 714 peaks with at least 714m of prominence seems extremely impressive in this context.

       

      Interesting? Or have I just had too many long, boring plane journeys recently....

       

      Anybody else care to calculate and share their values?

       

      Lee

       

    • Rob Woodall
      ... Well, it s an indicator of the degree of orientation towards high-prominence summits A solely UK based bagger could have racked up thousands of
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 16, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        A bagger has index P if he has climbed P mountains with prominence of at least P, and the other mountains he has climbed (Np− P)  have a prominence no more P each.

         

        With apologies to our Imperially minded friends, the number is more meaningful for most of us if P is defined in meters. I used the data on peakbagger.com to calculate the P-Index for a couple of our illustrious colleagues:

         

        Bob Packard P-714m

        Ken Jones P-674m

        Andy Martin P-633m

         

        It is an indicator of lifetime activity


        Well, it's an indicator of the degree of orientation towards high-prominence summits 

        A solely UK based bagger could have racked up thousands of lower-prominence summits yet get a very low P score. As an extreme example. the weekend I got back from the recent US Ultras trip, I covered about 40 miles and 3000m of ascent in 2 days visiting about 20 very nice summits in the English Lake District although nothing more prominent than about P40m

        and gets progressively harder to improve. To illustrate, my own P-Index is P375m but since this includes 18 peaks between P375 and P399, to improve my P-Index to P400m I will have to climb 43 peaks with at least P400m. To improve to P450m I will have to climb 135 peaks of a least P450m. Bob´s 714 peaks with at least 714m of prominence seems extremely impressive in this context.

         

        Anybody else care to calculate and share their values?


        Based purely on my peaks on peakbagger.com mine is 491 - which neatly is the highpoint of Islay in Scotland's Inner Hebrides. I may have a few more relevant UK summits not on peakbagger but expect 491 is about right.

        Interesting metric, anyway, Lee, despite its apparent bias toward continent-dwellers.

        A more telling indicator would be lifetime distance and height gain. I don't keep those stats although I believe Bob Packard does...

        Rob
      • Roy Schweiker
        ... The P measure as described seems to imply one visit per summit so gaining a high number would require extensive travel, would you also require this for
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 20, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          >> It is an indicator of lifetime activity
          >
          >Well, it's an indicator of the degree of orientation towards
          >high-prominence summits
          >
          >A more telling indicator would be lifetime distance and height gain. I
          >don't keep those stats although I believe Bob Packard does...

          The P measure as described seems to imply one visit per summit so gaining
          a high number would require extensive travel, would you also require this
          for lifetime dist/elev?

          And while climbing smaller peaks hurts one in average height/prom
          calculations, it doesn't affect the P measure

          >Interesting metric, anyway, Lee, despite its apparent bias toward
          >continent-dwellers.

          Depends on which continent :-)

          I seem to think we had a previous go-round of this using feet instead of
          meters but will let Andy investigate :-)

          Anyway my numbers are 331 in meters and 640 in feet for USA peaks in LoJ,
          but have only a few outside
        • mountaingoatnewton
          Rob, Roy, thanks for the comments: Well, it s an indicator of the degree of orientation towards high-prominence summits Not exactly, since Petter s number
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 21, 2013
          • 0 Attachment

            Rob, Roy, thanks for the comments: 

             

            >Well, it's an indicator of the degree of orientation towards

            > high-prominence summits

             

            Not exactly, since Petter's number is likely only 7th or 8th of the climbers on peakbagger yet he is by far the leader in climbing Ultras. However, it is intended to separate the high prominence climbers from the Marilyn baggers..


            > A more telling indicator would be lifetime distance and height gain. I
            > don't keep those stats although I believe Bob Packard does...

             

            That just makes you a keen hiker, not a P obsessed bagger..

             

            The P measure as described seems to imply one visit per summit so gaining
            a high number would require extensive travel, would you also require this
            for lifetime dist/elev?

             

            It does, but I wouldn't for the same reason as above

             

             And while climbing smaller peaks hurts one in average height/prom
            calculations, it doesn't affect the P measure

            >Interesting metric, anyway, Lee, despite its apparent bias toward
            > continent-dwellers.

            That's island mentality, not island reality..

             

            Although I have not backed this up with a calculation, I expect you Rob, in Peterborough, UK to have to travel less miles to reach 600 P600m summits, than someone based (say) in San Diego, and certainly a lot less than someone based in the NE US like Roy.

            Depends on which continent :-)

             

            Depends on how many peaks you climb per trip when you make the effort to travel to an area with lots of peaks. May see a reflection in the difference between a retiree's habit and a working person's..

             

             

             I seem to think we had a previous go-round of this using feet instead of
            meters but will let Andy investigate :-)

             

            Andy mentioned the 1000 x 1000ft list on his URL, already an impressive feat, but I guess the neat 2000 x 2000ft or 1000 x 1000m targets are really rather a stretch, given that Bob Packard is not even halfway there

             Anyway my numbers are 331 in meters and 640 in feet for USA peaks in LoJ,
            but have only a few outside

             

            Excellent. My number is up to 375 after climbing a couple of high P Alpine peaks with Rob last weekend ;-) Now targeting 400 by end of next year, which is kind of nice as I still have a few easy (ie do-able in winter) P400s within reasonable driving distance of my house near Basel..

             

            Which makes me think we could have a glob measure too - ie the distance to the nearest peak to your home whose ascent would increase your P number..

             

            Cheers

            Lee



            --- In prominence@yahoogroups.com, <prominence@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

            >> It is an indicator of lifetime activity
            >
            >Well, it's an indicator of the degree of orientation towards
            >high-prominence summits
            >
            >A more telling indicator would be lifetime distance and height gain. I
            >don't keep those stats although I believe Bob Packard does...

            The P measure as described seems to imply one visit per summit so gaining
            a high number would require extensive travel, would you also require this
            for lifetime dist/elev?

            And while climbing smaller peaks hurts one in average height/prom
            calculations, it doesn't affect the P measure

            >Interesting metric, anyway, Lee, despite its apparent bias toward
            >continent-dwellers.

            Depends on which continent :-)

            I seem to think we had a previous go-round of this using feet instead of
            meters but will let Andy investigate :-)

            Anyway my numbers are 331 in meters and 640 in feet for USA peaks in LoJ,
            but have only a few outside
          • dillmore
            Lee wrote:
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 22, 2013
            • 0 Attachment


              Lee wrote:

              <<Which makes me think we could have a glob measure too - ie the distance to the nearest peak to your home <<whose ascent would increase your P number..


              I like this idea, although it might be hard to calculate for those of us with low P numbers (mine's at 201 in meters, 290 in feet) if it goes outside of a comprehensive database like LoJ..


              I wish my H index was as high as my P number...


              Shannon



              --- In prominence@yahoogroups.com, <prominence@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

              Rob, Roy, thanks for the comments: 

               

              >Well, it's an indicator of the degree of orientation towards

              > high-prominence summits

               

              Not exactly, since Petter's number is likely only 7th or 8th of the climbers on peakbagger yet he is by far the leader in climbing Ultras. However, it is intended to separate the high prominence climbers from the Marilyn baggers..


              > A more telling indicator would be lifetime distance and height gain. I
              > don't keep those stats although I believe Bob Packard does...

               

              That just makes you a keen hiker, not a P obsessed bagger..

               

              The P measure as described seems to imply one visit per summit so gaining
              a high number would require extensive travel, would you also require this
              for lifetime dist/elev?

               

              It does, but I wouldn't for the same reason as above

               

               And while climbing smaller peaks hurts one in average height/prom
              calculations, it doesn't affect the P measure

              >Interesting metric, anyway, Lee, despite its apparent bias toward
              > continent-dwellers.

              That's island mentality, not island reality..

               

              Although I have not backed this up with a calculation, I expect you Rob, in Peterborough, UK to have to travel less miles to reach 600 P600m summits, than someone based (say) in San Diego, and certainly a lot less than someone based in the NE US like Roy.

              Depends on which continent :-)

               

              Depends on how many peaks you climb per trip when you make the effort to travel to an area with lots of peaks. May see a reflection in the difference between a retiree's habit and a working person's..

               

               

               I seem to think we had a previous go-round of this using feet instead of
              meters but will let Andy investigate :-)

               

              Andy mentioned the 1000 x 1000ft list on his URL, already an impressive feat, but I guess the neat 2000 x 2000ft or 1000 x 1000m targets are really rather a stretch, given that Bob Packard is not even halfway there

               Anyway my numbers are 331 in meters and 640 in feet for USA peaks in LoJ,
              but have only a few outside

               

              Excellent. My number is up to 375 after climbing a couple of high P Alpine peaks with Rob last weekend ;-) Now targeting 400 by end of next year, which is kind of nice as I still have a few easy (ie do-able in winter) P400s within reasonable driving distance of my house near Basel..

               

              Which makes me think we could have a glob measure too - ie the distance to the nearest peak to your home whose ascent would increase your P number..

               

              Cheers

              Lee



              --- In prominence@yahoogroups.com, <prominence@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

              >> It is an indicator of lifetime activity
              >
              >Well, it's an indicator of the degree of orientation towards
              >high-prominence summits
              >
              >A more telling indicator would be lifetime distance and height gain. I
              >don't keep those stats although I believe Bob Packard does...

              The P measure as described seems to imply one visit per summit so gaining
              a high number would require extensive travel, would you also require this
              for lifetime dist/elev?

              And while climbing smaller peaks hurts one in average height/prom
              calculations, it doesn't affect the P measure

              >Interesting metric, anyway, Lee, despite its apparent bias toward
              >continent-dwellers.

              Depends on which continent :-)

              I seem to think we had a previous go-round of this using feet instead of
              meters but will let Andy investigate :-)

              Anyway my numbers are 331 in meters and 640 in feet for USA peaks in LoJ,
              but have only a few outside
            • rachelspurlock@netzero.com
              Shannon, I have recently bought a NC mountain house. I spoke with the owner of the nearest prominence (3661 , aka Justin Mountain) with 640 prominence in
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 22, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Shannon,

                I have recently bought a NC mountain house. I spoke with the owner of the nearest prominence (3661', aka Justin Mountain) with 640' prominence in Alleghany County.

                Since the road to his hilltop house is gate secured, I hope to get escorted access shortly during fall color season. From our house, Justin Mountain is 1000' feet vertical climb just across US highway 21, and the saddle for its prominence is the top or US 21 where it breaks the 3000' contour before its descent to meet US highway 221.

                What is the credit for climbing 640' prominence? Should I walk up partway, or is a driveup sufficient?



                Carl

                Please note: message attached

                From: <sdillmore@...>
                To: <prominence@yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: RE: RE: Re: [prominence] A question for the scientists #2
                Date: 22 Sep 2013 06:42:22 -0700


                ____________________________________________________________
                One Weird Trick
                Could add $1,000s to Your Social Security Checks! See if you Qualify…
                http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3231/523f6b7b8259b6b7b21c9st03duc

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Rob Woodall
                Lee wrote ... *Although I have not backed this up with a calculation, I expect you Rob, ... True enough, I have a lot of doable P600s within a 2 hours flying
                Message 7 of 11 , Sep 23, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Lee wrote


                  >Interesting metric, anyway, Lee, despite its apparent bias toward
                  > continent-dwellers.

                  That's island mentality, not island reality..

                  Although I have not backed this up with a calculation, I expect you Rob, in Peterborough, UK to have to travel less miles to reach 600 P600m summits, than someone based (say) in San Diego, and certainly a lot less than someone based in the NE US like Roy.


                  True enough, I have a lot of doable P600s within a 2 hours flying time.  The reason why my P610 count remains low is mainly because I'm mainly targetting P1500m summits when I do make the effort to leave the UK  

                  Any P1500 will always could towards my lifetime P number, but from that point of view I suppose P1000s are more efficient.

                  Interesting stuff, Lee

                  Rob
                • Adam Helman
                  The P index tends to provide values that are quite close to each other in a fractional sense even when the total levels of peakbagging effort differ markedly.
                  Message 8 of 11 , Sep 27, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                      The P index tends to provide values that are quite close to each other in a fractional sense
                    even when the total levels of peakbagging effort differ markedly.
                     
                       I view this as an inherent **negative** aspect of its application.
                     
                       Example. Prior to earning 14 more P2000 foot summits on my last journey I had these
                    peaks as ranked by prominence :
                     
                     
                       Thereby my P-index was 528 (that is, 528 peaks with P528 meters or greater).
                    Included (were) 501 P2K summits. It may have risen to 530 or so.... I honestly don't care
                    what the exact value is.
                     
                       Currently Bob Packard has a whopping 996 P2000 foot summits, i.e. roughly twice as many as I had
                    two weeks ago (Bob records his ascents at peakbagger WHILE TRAVELING ...
                    yet I fail to sense the need for such timeliness).
                     
                       Even though Bob's P2000 count is twice my own (the latter as of 2 weeks ago), his P-index is 716  :
                     
                     
                     
                       In a fractional sense 716 is closer to 501 than 996 is to 501.  Hence P-index variability
                    between climbers undervalues their relative amounts of effort.
                     
                                      **********************************************************************
                     
                       In theory this 716 value is PREDICTABLE based on an assumed power-law distribution of 
                    climbed prominences with a given exponent. 
                     
                                  Adam Helman
                     
                     
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:16 AM
                    Subject: Re: [prominence] A question for the scientists #2

                     


                    A bagger has index P if he has climbed P mountains with prominence of at least P, and the other mountains he has climbed (Np− P)  have a prominence no more P each.

                     

                    With apologies to our Imperially minded friends, the number is more meaningful for most of us if P is defined in meters. I used the data on peakbagger.com to calculate the P-Index for a couple of our illustrious colleagues:

                     

                    Bob Packard P-714m

                    Ken Jones P-674m

                    Andy Martin P-633m

                     

                    It is an indicator of lifetime activity


                    Well, it's an indicator of the degree of orientation towards high-prominence summits 

                    A solely UK based bagger could have racked up thousands of lower-prominence summits yet get a very low P score. As an extreme example. the weekend I got back from the recent US Ultras trip, I covered about 40 miles and 3000m of ascent in 2 days visiting about 20 very nice summits in the English Lake District although nothing more prominent than about P40m

                    and gets progressively harder to improve. To illustrate, my own P-Index is P375m but since this includes 18 peaks between P375 and P399, to improve my P-Index to P400m I will have to climb 43 peaks with at least P400m. To improve to P450m I will have to climb 135 peaks of a least P450m. Bob´s 714 peaks with at least 714m of prominence seems extremely impressive in this context.


                     

                    Anybody else care to calculate and share their values?


                    Based purely on my peaks on peakbagger.com mine is 491 - which neatly is the highpoint of Islay in Scotland's Inner Hebrides. I may have a few more relevant UK summits not on peakbagger but expect 491 is about right.

                    Interesting metric, anyway, Lee, despite its apparent bias toward continent-dwellers.

                    A more telling indicator would be lifetime distance and height gain. I don't keep those stats although I believe Bob Packard does...

                    Rob

                  • Petter Bjørstad
                    Adam, I think your observation is entirely correct, but there is no need for a P-index to reflect twice as many peaks as double P-index. This may be a matter
                    Message 9 of 11 , Sep 27, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Adam,

                      I think your observation is entirely correct, but
                      there is no "need" for a P-index to reflect twice as
                      many peaks as double P-index. This may be a matter of
                      getting used to.. That Bob is ahead of everybody else
                      is well reflected. This measure is pretty hard to improve as
                      the index moves up the ladder. I think we are quite many with
                      P-index between 500 and 600.. (me included..) The science H-index
                      is getting more widespread attention and this measure absolutely
                      smells similarly.. Then again, a single number will never capture
                      the often complex achievement of a "peakbagger"..

                      Best Petter (Currently at 199 ultra prominent peaks..)
                    • Adam Helman
                      A single number is indeed woefully inadequate. A graph of peak count versus prominence cutoff value is far more revealing, so demonstrating huge effort for
                      Message 10 of 11 , Sep 27, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                         A single number is indeed woefully inadequate. A graph of peak count versus prominence cutoff value
                        is far more revealing, so demonstrating huge effort for small prominences (Bob Martin, Rob Woodall),
                        effort climbing Earth's MOST prominent (Seven Summit completers), and people with large peak counts
                        throughout the entire prominence range (Bob Packard).
                         
                           This outdated graph (February 2009) must suffice for now -
                         
                         
                         
                                  Adam Helman
                          
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 11:09 AM
                        Subject: Re: [prominence] P-index metric of accomplishment

                         

                        Adam,

                        I think your observation is entirely correct, but
                        there is no "need" for a P-index to reflect twice as
                        many peaks as double P-index. This may be a matter of
                        getting used to.. That Bob is ahead of everybody else
                        is well reflected. This measure is pretty hard to improve as
                        the index moves up the ladder. I think we are quite many with
                        P-index between 500 and 600.. (me included..) The science H-index
                        is getting more widespread attention and this measure absolutely
                        smells similarly.. Then again, a single number will never capture
                        the often complex achievement of a "peakbagger"..

                        Best Petter (Currently at 199 ultra prominent peaks..)

                      • Roy Schweiker
                        ... Just think of plotting on a log scale :-) You don t waste valuable space on the graph for a few outliers like B & P, and gain greater discrimination at the
                        Message 11 of 11 , Sep 30, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > there is no "need" for a P-index to reflect twice as
                          > many peaks as double P-index. This may be a matter of
                          > getting used to.. That Bob is ahead of everybody else
                          > is well reflected.

                          Just think of plotting on a log scale :-)

                          You don't waste valuable space on the graph for a few outliers like B &
                          P, and gain greater discrimination at the low end where most people are

                          Of course someone with a large number N of peaks at a particular
                          prominence value will need to climb N+1 peaks to increase their P value
                          by 1 from that level which is very annoying right then :-)
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.