The Rankings are not an honour (honor for the US) system

GeorgeD · Post by **GeorgeD** » June 24th, 2006, 11:33 pm

I was thinking of something my mate Mike M said on another thread about the Ranking system, that it was an Honour System so we have to take the results on there with a 'grain of salt' .... to be a bit more relaxed about it. (a valid point of view I accept)

However as I was feeling contentious I thought I would post an alternative view..... just for the sake of a friendly discussion of course.

So my position is that it is not an honour system for 2 reasons: -
- firstly there are times posted on there NOT by the people that rowed them. That is there are times on there from Races and they are posted by C2 and I would guess they are often posted there 'for' people who would generally never bother about ranking times (ok this is only the 2k I am talking about but it is the primo ranking) - to make it more confusing they do not post the times from ALL sanctioned events (for valid reasons)

- the second reason it is not an honour system is C2 say it is not. How do they do that, well by introducing a verification requirement they make a determination that some people are to be trusted (most) but that some are not (few but fast)

So that is the simplistic view and there are many shades to this argument or dissemination. I believe there are few people who rank times that do not do so from a competitive position, that is they rank their times to make a comparison with other like minded people around the world who they are unlikely to ever meet or have the opportunity to compete with in a 'race' They rank to see how many people of like age and weight they are faster than or slower than, otherwise why would you bother. This is a good thing and provides much motivation for some and no doubt a mixture of pleasure and pain (none of which is really all that harmful). Now in the greater scheme of things if you are 99th or 98th it probably makes little difference to your pleasure or pain (ok if you are 101st rather than 100th it might make a little difference

) BUT if you are 3rd or 4th or even 11th then you might take a little more interest in those above you and start to wonder about the veracity of their times (this is just human nature and not a bad thing) and maybe just maybe if there is one there that does not gell with all the other available data then you may be a little more vociferous in your questioning. I think if your playing at this level then it is reasonable to expect to be questioned and not take offence - at this level the rankings for some are 'more' than just fun.

Now to give others the chance to have a say (if anyone can be bothered as this has been done to death) I would finish with one comment, and that is this .....

"The rankings are an honour system and they have to be viewed as such as the 'system' if chock full of flaws - the only real times are those set in races and there should be no WR that are not set in a race environment. There should as a result be no race results or need for verification to enter a time into the rankings, then it can be seen for what it is - a bit of fun'

cheers George

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » June 25th, 2006, 12:04 am

It is an honor system when (1) people are honorable and (2) when it is based only on honor.

As you have said, the verifications have ensured that it is not just an honor system. And we know that at least some of the people are not honorable.

It is annoying for example, that C2 encourages inclusion of slide times in with legitimate erg times. Yes it is legal, because C2 says it's okay, but certainly not honorable that they do.

Also it is annoying when someone puts in a time as a lightweight, and their profile says they weigh 79 kilograms. That is also not honorable.

Thus based on these things the rankings might have been intended to be based on honor, but often times they are not.

JimR · Post by **JimR** » June 25th, 2006, 7:19 am

George -

I think anyone who truly cares about the rankings has to accept that it is based on bad data. It doesn't appear possible to quantify the bad data but I would suppose most of it is at the top end (the fastest times). So those who care the most are also most likely affected by this. It almost appears desigbed to make people who care crazy.

For everyone else I bet they are pretty fun and they like having it.

It is a good example of using something in a way that it wasn't intended and then complaining that it doesn't work.

JimR

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » June 25th, 2006, 2:23 pm

JimR,

Do you have any times in the rankings?

tomhz · Post by **tomhz** » June 25th, 2006, 2:24 pm

JimR wrote:I think anyone who truly cares about the rankings has to accept that it is based on bad data. It doesn't appear possible to quantify the bad data but I would suppose most of it is at the top end (the fastest times). So those who care the most are also most likely affected by this. It almost appears desigbed to make people who care crazy.

For everyone else I bet they are pretty fun and they like having it.

It is a good example of using something in a way that it wasn't intended and then complaining that it doesn't work.

JimR

This sums it up pretty well. All people complaining about the ranking should read this.

Tom

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » June 25th, 2006, 2:41 pm

Tom,

Are you saying the rankings were intended for cheaters?

mpukita · Post by **mpukita** » June 25th, 2006, 3:30 pm

JimR wrote:George -
It almost appears designed to make people who care crazy.

So why would C2 want to make people who care crazy? It MUST be a plot to sell more ergs. Have you noticed the subliminal messages being played in the inaudible audio from the C2 web site, "Buy an erg. Buy another erg. Buy even another erg. Keep buying ergs."?

Turn off those speakers!

GeorgeD · Post by **GeorgeD** » June 25th, 2006, 4:46 pm

I think the ranking boards were a good idea and still are. I would make only a couple of changes:
I would NOT enter race results and I would NOT require verification, then they can be seen for what they are just a bit of fun. There will be people who cheat for their own perverse gratification but the removal of apparant 'sanctioned' results would mean that the rankings are very much 'use at your own risk' - and people who participate should do so with that understanding. I think C2 then are just providing a 'tool' for people but are under no obligation to police it either directly or indirectly.

oh and I would only have WR's for times rowed in sanctioned events

George

GeorgeD · Post by **GeorgeD** » June 25th, 2006, 4:50 pm

mpukita wrote:
JimR wrote:George -
It almost appears designed to make people who care crazy.
So why would C2 want to make people who care crazy? It MUST be a plot to sell more ergs. Have you noticed the subliminal messages being played in the inaudible audio from the C2 web site, "Buy an erg. Buy another erg. Buy even another erg. Keep buying ergs."?

Turn off those speakers!

Mike how does your taking a part of Jims post in isolation and adding a dose of sarcasm add to the discussion?

George

mpukita · Post by **mpukita** » June 25th, 2006, 6:00 pm

GeorgeD wrote:
mpukita wrote:
JimR wrote:George -
It almost appears designed to make people who care crazy.
So why would C2 want to make people who care crazy? It MUST be a plot to sell more ergs. Have you noticed the subliminal messages being played in the inaudible audio from the C2 web site, "Buy an erg. Buy another erg. Buy even another erg. Keep buying ergs."?

Turn off those speakers!

Mike how does your taking a part of Jims post in isolation and adding a dose of sarcasm add to the discussion?

George

C'mon George. PLEASE put that sabre back in its sheath. It's simply called (drum roll please):

HUMOR

... or maybe HUMOUR in your neck of the woods ...

... or maybe BAD HUMOR or BAD HUMOUR ...

That's all it adds to the discussion ... even Chad understand such things (neck wringing thing, etc.).

-- Mark

GeorgeD · Post by **GeorgeD** » June 25th, 2006, 11:06 pm

The point I make Mike is that on a forum where all people have to go on are the words on the page (no facial expressions, no body language, no nothing), others have been castigated for asking the simple question - "Do you believe the times / distances posted" and invariably you have jumped in and assumed (made the leap) they were calling the person a liar.

I dont see any smiley faces in your post just an angry one.

So I will put away my sabre, your entitled to your opinion, and if it was humour then I reserve the right to view it as poor humour.

George

ps I still think the sarcasm in your first post was unwarranted and in your respose to mine not much better.... and neither added to the discussion.

mpukita · Post by **mpukita** » June 26th, 2006, 6:36 am

Whatever.

This is not a joke ...

-- Mark

Francois · Post by **Francois** » June 26th, 2006, 10:42 am

GeorgeD wrote:I think the ranking boards were a good idea and still are. I would make only a couple of changes:
I would NOT enter race results and I would NOT require verification, then they can be seen for what they are just a bit of fun. There will be people who cheat for their own perverse gratification but the removal of apparant 'sanctioned' results would mean that the rankings are very much 'use at your own risk' - and people who participate should do so with that understanding. I think C2 then are just providing a 'tool' for people but are under no obligation to police it either directly or indirectly.

oh and I would only have WR's for times rowed in sanctioned events

George

Let us not forget that presently, only the 2K can be raced, and that for people like me who perform better at other distances, the verification code generated by the PM3, even though not perfect, adds credibility to the times posted. Those times become even more credible when correlated by a race time for the 2K. There is also the possibility of using RowPro which adds further credibility.
IMO, there is a moral obligation for all users of a PM3 to enter the verification code when ranking a piece; after all it only requires pressing one extra key on the PM3. There should be some incentive form C2 to help people switch from earlier monitor models to the PM3.

Also, there should be other distances offered at races, even if they only have, at first, exhibition status. For instance WIRC could be a two days event with all distances from the 500m to the 10k being offered. This would also help for the credibility of the ranking for the top rowers for non 2K distances. It would also be a great incentive for all of us that are not at our best at the 2K distance!

In short, instead of making the ranking less credible by removing the race times and the verification, I would do the opposite by fostering competition at all distances and helping people establish that their times are legitimate.

JimR · Post by **JimR** » June 26th, 2006, 12:17 pm

John Rupp wrote:JimR,

Do you have any times in the rankings?

No

JimR

JimR · Post by **JimR** » June 26th, 2006, 12:26 pm

GeorgeD wrote:I think the ranking boards were a good idea and still are. I would make only a couple of changes:
I would NOT enter race results and I would NOT require verification, then they can be seen for what they are just a bit of fun. There will be people who cheat for their own perverse gratification but the removal of apparant 'sanctioned' results would mean that the rankings are very much 'use at your own risk' - and people who participate should do so with that understanding. I think C2 then are just providing a 'tool' for people but are under no obligation to police it either directly or indirectly.

oh and I would only have WR's for times rowed in sanctioned events

George

This post caused me to go look at the rankings and I see there is an option to see only the race results. I assume that the race results are verified before they are loaded to the rankings or at least received from sources C2 trusts for accuracy.

So maybe the concerns of the people who are most affected by the accuracy of the rankings data (the top 1-2%) would be addressed if they limited their results to only race results. These appear to be accurate and not subject to debate.

When you include all times you open up the "accuracy" can of worms. Most don't care because they don't really skew the results in the 90% of the ranking where most people live.

As an aside ... I would suspect that the best rowers are more impacted by the fact that their "true" competition likely don't post their times anyway ... unless it comes from a race that is posting times.

JimR