Ranking Protocol Update

[old] c2bill · Post by **[old] c2bill** » May 23rd, 2005, 11:21 am

There has been a great deal of discussion surrounding the new requirements associated with posting a top 3 time on the ranking. Some good points have been made. A bit of background: -28,000 people used the ranking last year -to date, over 2,500 people have entered times into this years ranking -the ranking is visited over 500,000 times per year In the very early days of the online ranking, there was no restriction at all on entering times into the ranking. In less than 2 months after the ranking was launched I started having to delete bogus results from a variety of events. Some of these results were VERY bogus - using crude or insulting screen names and ridiculous comments. They clearly could not be allowed to remain. Very shortly thereafter I implemented an entry code system which has remained basically unchanged until May 1 of this year. In order to enter a result that qualified for a top 10-20 spot (varies by event) the individual needed an entry code which was obtained by emailing Dena here at Concept2. This code was valid for the season and gave that individual free and clear access to enter any time. Individuals were asked to provide the name of a witness for their row (but were not required to do so). As the ranking continues to move forward, gain in popularity and see a corresponding increase in traffic we've worked hard to maintain the integrity of the rankings - not only for Concept2 (our name appears at the top of each page) but also for the 28,000 rowers who rely on the ranking every day for motivation. Based on the feedback I've had so far the current verifiable result program will stay in place - with a slight change. An entry code will still need to be obtained from Dena in order to rank a top 10 result. The process for obtaining this code is unchanged from prior years. Should an individual enter a time into one of the top 3 spots that would have also qualified as a top 3 in the prior year's complete season: -a non-verifiable result will appear in the correct ordinate position, but with no place number next to the name. -a verifiable result (public machine, witness) will appear and be given a place number. Results can be flagged as "IND_V" by emailing billp@concept2.com with the public location and witness information after entering the piece into the ranking. This allows those individuals who either do not have access to a public machine, or who choose not to use it to continue to post their fast times. It also gives some motivation to this same group to seek out a public machine and a witness to verify their time. FAQ's: 1. Isn't there some sort of hardware/software solution? Concept2 is exploring this option. 2. What about RowPro results? RowPro results will continue to be treated as normal individually entered results. If we do implement a monitor/software solution, RowPro may be able to tie into this. 3. Do I need to give Concept2 advance notice of my row if I think I may break into the top 3? No. The only reason to contact Concept2 in advance is if you need help finding a publically accessible machine for your attempt or if you have questions about the system. 4. Doesn't this imply that none of "us" are to be trusted? The problem with the web is that "us" are not the only users of the ranking. "They" are visiting the web site, training forum and ranking. The forum was hacked last year, and the ranking has seen many attempts to circumvent the code system. The comfortable anonymity felt from behind a keyboard and monitor leads sometimes to hooliganism. Virus attacks, threatening forum postings and hackers all thrive on anonymity. Watching the community of rowers form around the online log/ranking and forums has been an amazing experience. This new system is intended to ensure that the ranking continue to be relevant for years to come.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » May 23rd, 2005, 11:44 am

BRAVO! Can't imagine anyone being unhappy with that.

[old] Citroen · Post by **[old] Citroen** » May 23rd, 2005, 11:59 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 23 2005, 04:21 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> -a verifiable result (public machine, witness) will appear and be given a place number. </td></tr></table> Can you elaborate on that requirement? For example, Pete Marston had a "Southern Training Weekend" at his house, with a bunch of the UK base ergers. If someone had pulled a top three time at that informal event would it count as a "public machine"? [When, in fact, it's Pete's private machine in his back yard.] Pete's event was publicly announced on <a href='http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7117' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... 117</a> I would have loved to go, but couldn't due to other commitments. [Not that I'm likely to pull a top three score, well not this season anyway.]

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » May 23rd, 2005, 12:13 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 23 2005, 08:21 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>-a non-verifiable result will appear in the correct ordinate position, but with no place number next to the name. -a verifiable result (public machine, witness) will appear and be given a place number. </td></tr></table> The pre-notification has been done away with. Good. Now there remains the problem with definition of a "public machine". There are NO public machines that I know of, anywhere, as as been pointed out by others. And C2 has not defined what a public machine is.. How do those of us with legitimate times rowed at home, and WITH A WITNESS, have our machines to be considered as "public", the same as the other public machines which are not. Would you take some time to look at and provide a solution to this problem, and how we, who are the great majority of rowers, can have our times entered into the rankings and not be excluded, simply because of the location of our ergs.

[old] Canoeist · Post by **[old] Canoeist** » May 23rd, 2005, 1:52 pm

Maybe "public machine" should be changed to "public event". For the longer distances, it might be necessary to have a public event such as the marathon that I held in my basement with John Hart and Rick Bayko. Cheers, Paul Flack

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » May 23rd, 2005, 2:05 pm

Paul, That's a great idea. In that case all my rows are "public events", as my garage door is always open. There are probably at least 50 people who can see me rowing, every day, including all my PB events. The major problem with c2's rules is the exclusionary double standard and hypocrisy. I predicted, very early in the other thread, that c2 would not make the rules equitable for the majority of rowers. Indeed, they have not done so and very likely will not do so.

[old] CAROLE MAC · Post by **[old] CAROLE MAC** » May 23rd, 2005, 2:23 pm

Bill.....thanks for listening...

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » May 23rd, 2005, 2:46 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(PaulS @ May 23 2005, 11:44 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>BRAVO! Can't imagine anyone being unhappy with that. </td></tr></table> Exactly!!!! Thanks Bill

[old] Steve_R · Post by **[old] Steve_R** » May 23rd, 2005, 2:48 pm

Bill, I think this is a great compromise and hopefully a future HW/SW solution will make this even easier to post validated times. Unfortunately, this is required because of a few who would try to defraud. Thanks, Steve

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » May 23rd, 2005, 4:12 pm

C2's new rules have had the following three components: (1) notify C2 prior to rowing, (2) be rowed on a public machine, and (3) have a witness that can verify the time. Now C2 is dispensing with the notification in advance, which is a good move but, at least, that particular rule did affect everyone equally. Although it would have been an inconvenience, anyone could have provided some kind of notification to C2 in advance of time trials, though spur of the moment times would have been lost. Thus thank you to C2 for dispensing with that requirement. However, besides being highly abiguous, the rowing on a public machine rule does not affect everyone equally. To the contrary it excludes the majority of rowers and, thus, unfairly benefits a select small percentage. And because this rule is not specifically defined, the exclusions are at the whim of C2.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » May 23rd, 2005, 4:16 pm

Quite a few people have been asking C2 how those of us with no accessible "public erg", whatever that really means, can possibly qualify to have our times verified. C2 where is your answer to this? Is the purpose of this rule to simply exclude the majority of the membership? If not, and if the rules are intended to allow all of us with an equitable chance to post our times to the rankings, then how do you suggest we go about doing this?

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » May 23rd, 2005, 4:31 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ May 23 2005, 08:16 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Is the purpose of this rule to simply exclude the majority of the membership? </td></tr></table> No John, I think that the purpose is simply to exclude you. The other 27,999 people in the rankings last year were "C2 Preferred Ergers."

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » May 23rd, 2005, 4:38 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Bayko @ May 23 2005, 12:31 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ May 23 2005, 08:16 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Is the purpose of this rule to simply exclude the majority of the membership? </td></tr></table> No John, I think that the purpose is simply to exclude you. The other 27,999 people in the rankings last year were "C2 Preferred Ergers." </td></tr></table> Now Ricko, I kept myself from posting that, or the "fact" that there will only be 13,999 participants this next year since the "majority" will be excluded. I guess the part about "any time will be posted" was missed. It will even be in the right place, so a 1.8 sec 500M will still make the top of the list, at least until someone posts a 1.7.

[old] monkey · Post by **[old] monkey** » May 23rd, 2005, 6:21 pm

Seems like a reasonable compromise, I would like to see the "public event" as Paul Flack suggests acceptable for verication though. Such events are becoming increasingly popular here in the UK, we've recently had Carole Macs northern training day where a new British record was set for the Womens 30+ HM and Pete Marstons southern training day. Loads of reliable witnesses at both events for any top 3 times that may have been set. Only thing missing is the charge for using a public erg, acceptable surely? Well done C2

[old] michaelb · Post by **[old] michaelb** » May 23rd, 2005, 8:20 pm

I appreciate the response by C2 finally, but I don't see why people see this as an acceptable compromise. What did C2 "compromise" other than the prior notice of the attempt? Several women have posted on this forum that they are top 3 for their age and yet row alone at home; their results will no longer be be ranked and cannot be verified. Andreas and FrankJ have indicated that they want to set top ranked performances in online races with rowpro, and yet neither will be allowed to do so by C2. In adopting this policy, C2 still hasn't explained how this policy of requiring a public and witnessed machine for a top 3 row to be ranked, can realistically be applied to the marathon and half marathon distances. We want more people competing, not less. While it may seem like a small thing to dispute, whether someone's row is listed with a number or not, if I was the fastest or one of the fastest people in the world in this unknown and obscure sport of indoor rowing, it would matter to me.

Concept2 Forum

Ranking Protocol Update

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General