'Considerable' rating

After two weekends of avalanche fatalities, I've now heard again the question of re-examining the use of a "considerable" rating in hind-site.  I was interested in seeing folks' thoughts here, in a specific conversation, separate from the news/condolences threads of specific accidents.

Personally, I'm having a very hard time accepting the notion that "Considerable" was/is not enough of a warning--almost to the point of feeling negatively judgmental towards a person who thinks that, and their ability to correctly make self-assessments and decisions in the BC (an un-healthy response in itself on my part I know).  I feel that if one truly reads and heeds the fine print of a "Considerable" rating, it is a good indicator of the complex dangers, mysteries & uncertainty of BC travel.  Key words/concepts including:
-Dangerous Avalanche Conditions (the first descriptor-obvious?)
-Natural avalanches possible, human triggered likely (how many other 'go for it' decisions made in life be they recreationally, financially, emotionally would we make if violent outcomes were "possible to likely"?)
-'Avalanche Size & Distribution' column lays out a wide variety of sizes as a possibility, which to me reads not as "If" but "When".

I'm curious if folks think it's not enough of a warning for the un-trained & in-experienced mountain travel sort (who don't read the fine print of the rating), or falls short even for people of "experience" going into the backcountry?  Am I being small-minded here and missing an important point?

Submitted with honest inquiry and openness towards other ideas.

By having an odd number of ratings, the middle one becomes the default grey area that tints other elements of the decision process.

My problem with the "considerable" rating is not that people go out with fine print as you've detailed, it's that the rating is broadcast just about anytime there is new snow. I've been out on plenty of days when the rating for the aspect that I'm on is "considerable" and I have felt very safe and have seen no signs of instability that would cause me to turn around. I have also been out on days when the rating was moderate and have turned around or chosen less adventurous routes.

I feel like "considerable" is the go-to rating when there is too much variation across a region or the forecasters want to error on the side of caution. I would appreciate a gray colored rating of "questionable" that is the equivalent of "considerable" in terms of potential for slides but without the assertion that they will happen.

Don't forget that the guys who were killed in Colorado were experienced backcountry travellers as were the Tunnel Creek victims, the Phantom Slide victims, the recent Utah victim, and many many more.

Personally, I'm having a very hard time accepting the notion that "Considerable" was/is not enough of a warning--almost to the point of feeling negatively judgmental towards a person who thinks that, and their ability to correctly make self-assessments and decisions in the BC....

I might be one of those... I don't think its a good idea to make a conclusion based on the rating alone. I put most weight on observations in the field/on the tour than I do the rating, and have turned around or altered my path on days rated moderate. For me the rating mostly influences the objective before I hit the trail, but the same mindset on the trail is applied regardless of rating. The rating is a regional thing.

My thoughts on the tragedies are related to large group dynamics. If we want to put a value on a rating then I think they ought to add a rating system based on group size, the same scale based on group size with 5 or more in the extreme.

I might be one of those... I don't think its a good idea to make a conclusion based on the rating alone. I put most weight on observations in the field/on the tour than I do the rating, and have turned around or altered my path on days rated moderate. For me the rating mostly influences the objective before I hit the trail, but the same mindset on the trail is applied regardless of rating. The rating is a regional thing.

My thoughts on the tragedies are related to large group dynamics. If we want to put a value on a rating then I think they ought to add a rating system based on group size, the same scale based on group size with 5 or more in the extreme.

Apparently the beginning of a decision process?

Apparently the beginning of a decision process?

correct

I feel like "considerable" is the go-to rating when there is too much variation across a region or the forecasters want to error on the side of caution.

maybe, its certainly used most. But I would rather the forecasters err on the conservative side the learning curve of its accuracy is more forgiving.