The way I see it is people have the choice whether they want to make something an adventure or not. Either way major info or no info it's going to be an adventure in this case. The mystique of the North Cascades I feel has disappeared due to guide books, topo maps, google earth, ect. Now most people in Washington the North Cascades are still going to be mystique like considering it's northern location and remoteness. Why would you force people to have to look else where than summitpost for beta on this peak? SP was made for route beta which I feel as though this is taking away from that. I understand some what about the mystique feeling your trying to portray. On my latest 3 week trip I did just about 0% research because I wanted it to be as exciting as possible which was a great success. But Mox Peaks does not seem like a peak to mess around with.
I gave you a 7/10 but I'll up it to an 11/10 if you add a picture of Silver Lake.
Can you even see Silver Lake from either summit? 2004 was a long time ago. I can't remember.
what makes a hard climb is the actual character of the climb, not your knowledge of it. if you have to deny yourself beta to make a climb interesting then you need to be going for harder climbs.
finding information on a route is not "dumbing it down to your level," its being responsible and doing your research.
If you don't want to give more information: fine, you are under no obligation to do so, but there is no need to insult people who happen to have different notions of what a hard climb should be.
"What makes a hard climb is the actual character of the climb, not your knowledge of it."
The first part is true, but having advanced knowledge of the difficulty of a climb makes it easier. You can assure yourself of taking the right gear (or not taking unnecessary gear), for example, or know some other details that can make or break success such as a key place to easily cross a river or a key gully that greatly expedites progress so you don't have to do too much scouting in the field (someone on the Internet did that for you). These are the things that alter the mystical landscape to a play-by-play complete with over-indulgently annotated route overlays that the Internet seems to be rife with these days.
"If you have to deny yourself beta to make a climb interesting then you need to be going for harder climbs."
I don't even know what this statement means.
"Finding information on a route is not 'dumbing it down to your level,' it's being responsible and doing your research."
I agree with this statement in general terms. But please re-read the note that opens my Overview section to understand why "dumbing down" would apply for me in the Mox Peaks case.
It all depends on the kind of climb you are looking for, a blow-by-blow account can make a convoluted route easier, but if the route is difficult in and of itself (aka: a high YDS rating) your knowledge of it will not make it less of a challenge.
It sounds like you want the experience of a first ascent on a pre-existing route, which was what i meant by the second comment. if what you are looking for is "mystical, something intimidating, something not reduced from hardcore adventure to softcore paddycake," there are plenty of those climbs waiting to be done; Mox, with or without a good route description, may or may not be one of them (i haven't climbed it yet so i can't say).
This is a remote alpine peak not cragging at Erie; I suppose we could bolt the whole route and flag the approach; maybe push the road to the base of the glacier. He phrased it in a respectful way I thought (not like me). Its his page and he can give as little or as much beta as he wants, in this case the route isn't that hard anyway; its supposed to be an adventure. If you really need beta you can just look in the Cascade Alpine Guide.
Edit: It's been a few years since my comment above. I'm changing my opinion. Why did you make the SP page if you didn't want to provide beta? You don't HAVE to participate in SP if you don't want info out there for people to use.