Ranking Position Numbering Poll

[Bob S.]

It's easy enough to find a place to compete and only count THOSE times in the numbering system.

That statement is utter nonsense. In the first place, the 2k records already require participation in a race, and for a great many of us in the U.S. any 2k competitions are a long way away. As for competitions in the other nine categories — forget it. For the most part there aren't any.

Bob S.

[Cazneau]

I don't have any reason to believe that large numbers of folks are submitting bogus times, but why not allow users to select the rankings for C2 logcard submissions only, the way you can for RowPro scores? Wouldn't hurt us slower towers to know where we fit in the list if verified times.[/b]

[kannankeril]

There should be verification for the Top 100, the current trust-based system is good enough for the rest of us.

[BoB/335]

I'm new here and thought that the "competition" edge of this site and this brand rower would be a good motivator. The only motivation I have from reading this thread is to compete against myself and to keep my records to myself!!!

[tjf0]

I'm new here and thought that the "competition" edge of this site and this brand rower would be a good motivator. The only motivation I have from reading this thread is to compete against myself and to keep my records to myself!!!

Hi Bob, sorry you feel that way. I have found that the ranking site has kept me motivated to the point that I have actually gone to some indoor rowing events which were a lot of fun and my times were right around where my basement times where...click here to see how motivated I got. I fail to see what anyone would get out of posting false times...

[grams]

I was sad to see that 'Yearly C2 Record times' for years previous to the changes have gone away. At least my old 'Year 2004' marathon record for my age group is not there any more. (marathon 42195M 03:43:52.2 1 of 1 | 100% 12/16/2003 61 L) It was done before the INDV system began. I had my husband as my 'witness' and it was done on my own machine in our basement with my faithful stereo playing. I did take a picture of the PM3 as proof.

I'm not sure I have another marathon in me, let alone a record one. If I do another one it will be at home again with a friend or family member as witness. My 'fast' one was 3 hours 43 minutes. Gyms are reluctant to tie up a machine that long for one person, especially if that person is not a member.

If there is a way to allow folks to do their thing at home and have a family witness instead of hauling friends and a stereo to a gym, then I vote for that. This might be only for distances longer than competitive ones, which would remove the 2000 meter problems.

Grams

[iain]

I think all top 5 performances should be verified to be numbered, but unverified should be shown (as the names often verify them to those who know them).

I agree there ought to be a rejection of unrealistic times which C2 must override. You shouldn't automatically rank the fastest times as some people may not have done the relevant distance competitively. So I might do a 3*8'r3' (or would that be 3x8'r2') and be shown as having done 30'. This would distort the rankings where I use my quartile as an indication of performance. In addition, where I stop before the end of an interval, it records the distance but doesn't add in the time, so the record is over fast. So if I h/d say 3k into the second 5k on a 2 x 5k r2' where the first was in 20'. The log will show 22' for 8k @ 1:22.5. I would hate a similar effect that happened to coincide with a ranking distance to post a time that would bring my honesty into dispute.

I know people could always get others to do there sessions for them or not be in the entered category, but dealing with the Model C set as a D issue, fixing this in the software would seem sensible or if not possible, add part of the verificatio to say a Model C set up has been used and this recorded.

- Iain