C2 Logbook Distances

[joe80]

The current state of the 'honor board,' with three British girls claiming 30,000,000 metres each during the past day, is beyond ridiculous.

http://log.concept2.com/challenges/season/2017/10000

Has the time arrived when only verified distances should be considered valid?

Regards,

Joe

[Bob S.]

The current state of the 'honor board,' with three British girls claiming 30,000,000 metres each during the past day, is beyond ridiculous.

http://log.concept2.com/challenges/season/2017/10000

Has the time arrived when only verified distances should be considered valid?

Regards,

Joe

One problem is that only a limited number of set times and distances are verifiable at this point. C2 would have to make a compete revision of the system.

Bob S.

[joe80]

All my sessions, whether set distances and times or random, are entered using the c2 utility and are classified as 'verified'.

What to do when an 'honor board' is accessed by people who treat it as a joke?

Regards,

Joe

[Citroen]

What to do when an 'honor board' is accessed by people who treat it as a joke?

Pull the educational Louisville Slugger from the cupboard and start polishing it.
All you can do it delete the accounts and ban their email addresses. Of course, they'll then come back next month gaming the system with a new identity.

We've had some idiots doing the same sort of stuff on the CTC. The idiot with a cell phone is always a risk. You can only put so much security in place before the security overwhelms the application you're trying to secure.

[joe80]

One security feature that appears to have been abandoned recently is the imposition of a daily limit.

When I rowed my 24 hours distance, I wasn't able to log the 252km in one go; it had to be spread out over two days. It's a simple thing to post 30 million metres as a one-off. It would take more persistence, I suspect, than these juvenile jokesters possess to log bogus entries for 100 days or more.

Regards,

Joe

[jackarabit]

Verification, from the pov of C2 and from that of each individual submitting rower, is available for all pieces including the random time and distance "just rows" as submitted to the individual's training log. It is the individual's choice whether or not to make his or her training log public. As most of us do not enable public access to our logs, the claim of legitimancy for our honor board meterage is always open to question.

Obviously, ranked distance or time verification is a special case made available for public examination by C2. The protocol for verified submission is the same in either case: auto-verification via monitor, card or stick, Rowpro or ErgData upload to C2 upload utility or manual submission containing alpha-numeric verification code.

I suggest that the programming boffins add a public verification column to the honor board as "% meter total submitted with verification" either updated daily or calculated and displayed after calendar completion date of challenge. This should be adequate to warn off potential practical jokers and those fond of feats of imagination (duff rowers).

I DO NOT support applying a quality of execution criterion (average pace of total meterage) to the annual honor board. It is a medium term record of participation alone and should be maintained as such. The only "losing" result is 0 meters per annum.

[Bob S.]

The only "losing" result is 0 meters per annum.

I have gotten a damn good start on that one this year. How long will it take to get my T-shirt? I actually got on my erg once this year and got my feet in position O.K. - but couldn't get ahold of the handle. Maybe I might try once again, using a hook of some sort to pull it up to me.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

All my sessions, whether set distances and times or random, are entered using the c2 utility and are classified as 'verified'.

Regards,

Joe

Yeah, my bad. I was forgetting the fact that all erg pieces entered in the Logbook from a Logcard (or RP) are verified - just not made public like the select few that can get an official "V."

[jackarabit]

Bob, I don't know how accessible is the handle of a Dynamic in either stowed or ready position, assuming that it has those positions similar to a static C or D. On a model D, I can't retrieve the handle from up aganst the chain gate with my feet in the heelcups. I happen to use a very long-handled upholsterer's tack hammer to snag the handle by the relieved web in the center. Also serves to adjust the air shutter without returning feet to floor. Long backscratcher might also work pretty well as a grappling hook.

[Bob S.]

Bob, I don't know how accessible is the handle of a Dynamic in either stowed or ready position, assuming that it has those positions similar to a static C or D. On a model D, I can't retrieve the handle from up aganst the chain gate with my feet in the heelcups. I happen to use a very long-handled upholsterer's tack hammer to snag the handle by the relieved web in the center. Also serves to adjust the air shutter without returning feet to floor. Long backscratcher might also work pretty well as a grappling hook.

On the dynamic, the handle hooks are an integral part of the stretcher, thus it moves with the feet. Net result is just about the same as on the D and C. Normally I can get the handle with one foot or the other on the floor. With a new (as of 12/6) knee that still has very limited range of motion, that technique didn't work with either one. Was going to try to with a cane today, but didn't feel up to making the attempt. Air shutter is easy on the dynamic. Just reach under the seat.

Bob S.

[jackarabit]

Life on the gerontological frontier ain't for sissies! Will the ROM increase with use?

[Bob S.]

Life on the gerontological frontier ain't for sissies! Will the ROM increase with use?

It is supposed to. My sole recent contribution to the WTHYDT thread was a post a few days ago that listed the items of my PT program. Can't find it now. I posted it mainly to see if anyone would pick up on the fact that it was all a PT package designed for post knee-op surgery. There were no responses, so I did not follow up on it.

Bob S.

[jackarabit]

Found yur post of 22 Dec. Bob. Missed it during our annual Xmess adventure which takes place largely on the highways and byways of the eastern half of the nation. My 45th year of this nonsense. Not many more I think.

[joe80]

Twelve days after my opening post, we now have seven idiots posting unrealistic distances in the logbook.

Well, stupid attracts stupid.

I hope C2 spends little more time in deleting these obviously spurious accounts and restoring the daily limit for posting distances. An upper level of 400km would allow all feasible 24 hours attempts to be logged.

I'm not sure why this bothers me so much but it does. Dennis Echelbery, currently in a notional 8th place, has logged 13 million+ metres and, for me, is being denied his rightful place at the head of the distance rankings.

Regards,

Joe

[Cyclist2]

Looks like they fixed it.

My question is: Why didn't Mr. Echelberry sign up on the U.S. Navy team for the Virtual Team Challenge, we could have used him!