Ranking Protocol Update

read only section for reference and search purposes.
[old] FrankJ
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] FrankJ » May 26th, 2005, 8:31 am

<!--QuoteBegin-Ralph Earle+May 26 2005, 07:09 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Ralph Earle @ May 26 2005, 07:09 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Counterexample:<br /><br />Place Name Age City State Country Distance Time Source<br />  James Crawford 50 Gainesville  FL  USA  16730 60:00.0 IND<br />1 Phil Hoare 54 Canberra  ACT  AUS  16344 60:00.0 IND<br />2 Patrick Capdeville 50 Châlons en Champagne    FRA  15845 60:00.0 IND <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />So if I row a good time unverified but not a top 3 time I can be ranked number one. If however my time is too good I will get the position but not the ranking. Seems like a hole in the new system. To follow the rules the rankings of unverified times should start with 4th and go up from there. Of course if nobody rows a verified time that is faster the rankings could end the year without a number one. Is that any better than better than an unverified number 1 that is slower than another unverified time that was too fast to get a number? <br /><br />I give up my head hurts.<br /><br />Frank

[old] Coach Gus
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] Coach Gus » May 26th, 2005, 6:30 pm

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+May 25 2005, 09:48 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ May 25 2005, 09:48 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...but if they put the effort of this discussion into their Erging, it would be good for at least a second off their current 2k.   <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />This coming from a "Marathon" Poster.<br /><br />This debate drags on because many of us realize that the change is detrimental to our use of the online rankings and are not willing to give up so easily. I appreciate Mr. Rupp's continuing to fight on our behalf.<br /><br />Many of us get part of our motivation from where we are ranked in the online rankings. While we may never be top 3 we may want to be top 100 or top 10% of our age and weight group for a particular distance. Having unnumbered rankings above you completely messes this up. I'd much rather have the the ocassional fake time than have 20/30+ placed above me, but not ranked above me. Oh look, I'm number 27 not counting the 30 faster than me who don't have a number placement. (<b>Edit:</b> My mistake. I was thinking that all "non-public" entries were unnumbered, but in rereading the rules, I see it's only the top 3 that are not numbered if they aren't verified by C2. I should have been more careful in my reading of the rules. I apologize.)<br /><br />As a second point, there is no such thing as a public erg that I know of. Every single erg is privately owned. The government doesn't have any of them just sitting around in parks for anyone to use. I know of no place where I can walk in with my witness and say I'm going to use your "public" erg for about an hour or so for my record attempt. You probably have the best chance of being able to do that with an erg individually owned by one of us. If you asked, I bet Mr. Rupp or any one of us would let you use ours for free for your attempt. My erg then is more public than an erg in a club. I have my own erg. Except for an organized race, why would I ever go some where or pay to use an erg?<br /><br /><b>The majority seem to like it better as it was. The changes were a well intentioned attempt to improve the quality of the online rankings. However, the changes won't accomplish that anyway. The experiment failed. There's nothing wrong with going back to what it was.</b>

[old] PaulS
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] PaulS » May 26th, 2005, 7:51 pm

Hey Gus,<br /><br />Didn't get to be a "marathon poster" overnight, it just came from consistency.... <br /><br />If it doesn't really change anything anyway, what "fight" is it that you appreciate?<br /><br />I can't imagine that there will be the 20-30 non-numbered times in [a single category] of the rankings that you refer to, but time will tell.<br /><br />"An Erg on Every Corner." hey, as long as they get a CBreeze to curb the Global Warming, I'm all for it!

[old] JimR
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] JimR » May 28th, 2005, 5:52 pm

After following this thread with some interest I just had a thought ... maybe for C2 in particular ...<br /><br />What if C2 implements a process for verification as they see fit. Also, add a view of the rankings so someone can look at ALL rankings or just VERIFIED rankings. <br /><br />It is after all just one long list of times with a bunch of other details (name, age, etc.). If someone is upset their faster "unverified" time is missing from the top of the list they look at everything. If a person wants to see results that have been verified according to the "rules" they look at anly those. Bill could solicit options on the two views here on the forum to get feedback on what might be most desireable.<br /><br />C2 gets to add the "option" that allows each individual to see the posted times as they like ... the ultimate in customer service!<br /><br />I think the most important thing is we all get back to Mike Caviston's thread about the horses!!!<br /><br />JimR

[old] Porkchop
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] Porkchop » May 28th, 2005, 7:26 pm

<!--QuoteBegin-JimR+May 28 2005, 04:52 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(JimR @ May 28 2005, 04:52 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After following this thread with some interest I just had a thought ... maybe for C2 in particular ...<br /><br />What if C2 implements a process for verification as they see fit. Also, add a view of the rankings so someone can look at ALL rankings or just VERIFIED rankings. <br /><br />It is after all just one long list of times with a bunch of other details (name, age, etc.). If someone is upset their faster "unverified" time is missing from the top of the list they look at everything. If a person wants to see results that have been verified according to the "rules" they look at anly those. Bill could solicit options on the two views here on the forum to get feedback on what might be most desireable.<br /><br />C2 gets to add the "option" that allows each individual to see the posted times as they like ... the ultimate in customer service!<br /><br />I think the most important thing is we all get back to Mike Caviston's thread about the horses!!!<br /><br />JimR <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />[Smacks self in forehead]<br /><br />Why didn't <b>I</b> I think of that? <br /><br />Simple solution, addresses everyone's concerns, hurts no one. Brilliant, diplomatic idea!<br /><br />Porkchop

[old] grams
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] grams » June 27th, 2005, 4:55 pm

Sorry folks, I've been in Oz. I thought I would start ranking my times as a motivational tool to get back into erging (even though I am a heavyweight now) and stumbled across the 'entry code' stuff.<br /><br />John Rupp, please stay out of this-I have enough to do catching up on my life without wading through your answers.<br /><br />C2Bill, I need clarification on the rules for the new system. <br /><br />I erg in my basement with my stereo going full blast. I post my times and rank them as I improve them. There are very few 60-69 year old ladies in the rankings, so I look pretty good. Its hard not to when there are only 2-4 entries under a specific time.<br /><br />Can my husband be a 'witness'? Or do I have to join a rowing club or gym in order to get a 'witness?<br /><br />Is all this a moot point now? Did C2Bill change the rankings to show both verifiedand unverified? All I really care about is where I stand. <br /><br />Re: 'official' times C2Bill; how about opoening up some regional competitions to more times? That would take care of all this. I could go to Ergmania and do my marathon.<br /><br />Or are wea all using the Nonathlon now for a reality check?<br /><br />thanks,<br /><br />grams

[old] GrapeApe
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] GrapeApe » June 29th, 2005, 5:58 pm

Why can't the PMx be used as a "witness"? The device would be capable of generating a verification key that I'm sure anyone would be happy to record it it meant a verified ranking.

[old] dadams
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] dadams » June 29th, 2005, 7:19 pm

<!--QuoteBegin-GrapeApe+Jun 29 2005, 04:58 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(GrapeApe @ Jun 29 2005, 04:58 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why can't the PMx be used as a "witness"?  The device would be capable of generating a verification key that I'm sure anyone would be happy to record it it meant a verified ranking. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />C2 is working on beta models to do just that.

Locked