POLL - Should Challenge/Honor Board leaders verify mileage?

[hjs]

you can either react to this thread emotionally or logically.

Carl has obviously noticed statistical anomolies like I have.

If Concept still don't want to address that then I shall have to go over to RowPro.

But like Carl says , technology will eventually kill off the manual entry GENERATION

Yes, and not only that, also most of all current jobs

But for now don,t have you hopes up high for concept, they cell machines, thats there core business. No worry about meters yes or no.

[Drivetofast]

Adam Adam whats wrong we go back a long way. We were teammates. Till you QUIT

[Carl Watts]

Yes the technology will catchup and make it even easier than Rowpro to upload your results.

The current IND_V system is only good for a one off row like a PB, no one is going to want to enter all those digits for every row for a whole month.

One day all it will take is to tick a check box that says "Synchronise with C2" and as soon as your mobile device has Wi-Fi or Cellular coverage it will automatically upload a verified row result for you if its just a simple log App or if you had the likes of RowPro it just uploads automatically at the end of the row. It will be better all round because the honors board will have thousands of extra people and everyone on it will be automatically verified if you make a tick in that box the default.

In the meantime just get RowPro and row with others live online that are actually rowing their metres !

[phlukke]

cheers Carl.
thanks once again for your input.

I hv emailed Concept about the FTC.
will post response when received.

[phlukke]

CONCEPT2.gif (30.75 KiB) Viewed 16942 times

Not even a suggestion that an online challenge may be in the pipeline. shame

[gregsmith01748]

As I think about this, I guess I don't see how rowpro or verifcation codes will "guarantee" a result. For example, if I am determined to cheat, all I need to do is find someone to collude with and we could both post our rows under the same user name. All you'd have to do is make sure that you never joined the same online row at the same time!

I guess what I am trying to say is that cheaters will find a way to cheat. I'd rather row in a community that is based on trust, versus mistrust, even if it means that "informal" challenges like honor boards or team challenges might have some rogue entries.

[Carl Watts]

As I think about this, I guess I don't see how rowpro or verifcation codes will "guarantee" a result. For example, if I am determined to cheat, all I need to do is find someone to collude with and we could both post our rows under the same user name. All you'd have to do is make sure that you never joined the same online row at the same time!

I guess what I am trying to say is that cheaters will find a way to cheat. I'd rather row in a community that is based on trust, versus mistrust, even if it means that "informal" challenges like honor boards or team challenges might have some rogue entries.

Your missing the point.

It's about making it as hard as possible utilising the current technology available to cheat. With RowPro you would need to find someone else to row on YOUR rower at a different time. Good luck with that and you have to find another cheat. I suspect what some people do is get others in their family to row a few metres under the same name for a Challenge, but hey at least SOMEONE has to actually do the rowing ! also if you row online you can see their average pace in the result so if someone else rows it they had better be going at about the same pace as you. Like I said it gets much harder to cheat.

Everyone on the RowPro team in the top placings during a challenge avoids online rowing like the plague and they will not even set-up a quick row and row by themselves, why ? is it because its a verified row and anyone can actually se the result of that row ?

As long as you have a stupid manual entry system to enter a result your making it as EASY as possible to cheat.

There will always be cheats, it's about minimising the number and making it very inconvenient for them to do so while making it easier for everyone else to upload a verified result. Pretty simple really and I just don't understand people that don't get the Concept.

If I was at the top of ANY competition, leader board or Challenge I would want to be able to post a verified result. The current system denies this to everyone who wants to participate.

At the very least make a verified result and option and give recognition to those who are prepared to make the additional effort to upload the result in this format.

[jackarabit]

Rowpro offers the most scam proof verification says Carl. Are IND-V, C2LOG, ErgData also acceptable verification protocols? C2 says yes. What says Carl?

Jack

[Carl Watts]

Rowpro offers the most scam proof verification says Carl. Are IND-V, C2LOG, ErgData also acceptable verification protocols? C2 says yes. What says Carl?

Jack

Correct but C2LOG would be good if it was liked to a single card. IND_V has problems in the gym anyone can go round the monitors and write down the results from the monitors.Untill the results are directly linked to say an App in your phone thats your unique logbook its going to be an ongoing problem. Sure you could lend your phone to someone else to use to row with, but thats pretty inconvenient. Remember its about making it easy for those who want to play fair and very inconvenient for those that want to continue to fake it.

Essentially the letter from concept 2 was interesting, "To many Hoops to jump through" and that is because of the current technology provided by Concept 2. Anyone who uses RowPro knows how easy it is to upload a verifed row, its a simple as a couple of mouse clicks. This is WAY EASIER than manually entering the result. The real problem is the Concept 2 monitor is now an 11 year old design, its WAY out of date. If they had decided to enable Bluetooth in it it would be a completely different story, there would already be a smartphone App out there which would have your "LogCard" in your Phone instead of the monitor. From this point onwards we would no longer be having this conversation.

Also I agree, those at the top of the board deciding not to use a verification system when it finally becomes easy due to the technology will look SUSPECT, thats why you have to drop the manual entry system at the point in time they have NO EXCUSES not to upload only verified rows.

RowPro was not perfect until V4.1 quite recently, it would crash during a row and you would loose your result, but really this was about 1 in 200 rows so tough luck, you loose the row but now with the new version I have yet to loose a result at the finish even if you loose your internet connection to the race server during the row.

I don't agree with Concept 2 in not setting up a separate verified only honors board, sure its going to look bad for them to start with with hardly any entries but over time the numbers will swing across. Its a better look for you to be at the top of a verified board than a board designed for cheats.

As soon as RowPro gets an online board set-up I'm pulling the plug on the Concept 2 honors board, in fact I will probably pull the plug on it next season anyway in protest.

[jackarabit]

As a recent convert to erg rowing, it never occurred to me to question the bona fides of honor board participants. I cast a "not bothered" vote in the poll primarily because I thought the C2 ranking model was inclusive and blind to the idea of a qualifying level of performance. For instance the 60-69 age group for 500m contains not only the great TJO, the first string and the mid packers, but also a bunch of us whose principle qualification for inclusion is the balls to put up a split number which is, as someone here tactfully put it, "way out on the arm of the Bell curve." One of us has to come dead last. I currently hold that position in one of the longer distances.

As confirmed low percentile pack fodder, I felt a bit excluded and ignored by the OP's suggestion that verification only really matters for board leaders. I feel much better now that I've repurposed the word "leader" to include everyone with a better 500 time than mine. I then advantaged myself by simply disallowing all pieces listed as IND only. To be scrupulously fair, I honored the inclusivity model of noncompetitive competition by disallowing several times longer than mine which were also entered manually. I give myself a pat on the back for possessing the sensitivity to consider the dignity and value of those to the right of me on the bell curve.

From a round 100 entries, elimination of non-V rows left a total of 23 eligible for ranking. 15 were to the left of me on the old curve, 1 rowed the same time, 6 were to the right. I did the %tile maths and was elated to discover that I moved from an 18th percentile to a 30th percentile performance. I note with total modesty that 30, if not exactly the marker for a leader, is still a lot farther from the longest time and much closer to the shortest than was 18. What could be fairer than that?

Despite the short time I have erged, I do understand that it is possible to lift workouts with IND-V, "move (someone's) workout" to logcard, and have my wife row a 1:30 500 in my place (don't I wish?). I also believe we should give our fellows in the C2 rankings the benefit of the doubt. There are other ways to game the system besides outright cheating and high minded protests may be not much more than performance envy. I hope everyone can find a venue for both participation and competition but as the owner of a logcard, a remote reader, ErgData AND the umbilical and blabslab for that bit of Brailleware, I'm not willing to dip into the haircut money on every Johnny's whim. I'm happy in my own tiny erg pond of self-validation and it was a whole lot easier than knocking another 5" off my 2K or another .5" off the 500 pulling with everything but my teeth and my tailfeathers. Not asking for anything better!

Jack

[Carl Watts]

Mentally I do the same thing, you cannot help it. I eliminate anyone without a verified result above me, especially if your rowing for the RowPro Team in a Challenge, you have no excuse why you cannot row online and therefore prove the time you rowed, distance and your pace for everyone to see on the Digital Rowing website results page.

http://www.digitalrowing.com/Oarbits/livefeed.htm


I think if some of you out there joined this and witnessed first hand the complete avoidance of uploading anything verified you may take a different perspective and come to the same conclusion that I did, many of the results are BS, you cannot help but suspect otherwise.

Really I look forward to the day everything goes verified, it will end up being a really big shakeup in the results for those who put in the effort to make it to the top.

[hjs]

Mentally I do the same thing, you cannot help it. I eliminate anyone without a verified result above me, especially if your rowing for the RowPro Team in a Challenge, you have no excuse why you cannot row online and therefore prove the time you rowed, distance and your pace for everyone to see on the Digital Rowing website results page.

http://www.digitalrowing.com/Oarbits/livefeed.htm


I think if some of you out there joined this and witnessed first hand the complete avoidance of uploading anything verified you may take a different perspective and come to the same conclusion that I did, many of the results are BS, you cannot help but suspect otherwise.

Really I look forward to the day everything goes verified, it will end up being a really big shakeup in the results for those who put in the effort to make it to the top.

I never verify anything, so my rows are not valid in your eyes. I do race though most seasons, so its easy to see that what I put in the rankings is very legit. Most people high in the rankings do race.
There are people known who have put records who where false though. These guys never ever raced, once you take route of cheating, there is no way back, the erg is very simple. If you can,t pull in public what you pulled at home......
You did not pull it.
I can give you a way to pull and verify a Wr, but I won,t. Its pretty easy to fool the pm.... I can pull a sub 1.00 500 without trying

[Carl Watts]

I don't need to be told how to fool the monitor, I am the only one repairing them in New Zealand and I know them inside out.

Yes obviously if you race in public, then its a good as you can get, no one would have a problem with that but if you cannot be bothererd to at least IND_V your result if you want everyone to beleive it then I do have a problem with that.

Look its really simple, Concept 2 need to put a verified system in place for those that want to use it.

[hjs]

I don't need to be told how to fool the monitor, I am the only one repairing them in New Zealand and I know them inside out.

Yes obviously if you race in public, then its a good as you can get, no one would have a problem with that but if you cannot be bothererd to at least IND_V your result if you want everyone to beleive it then I do have a problem with that.

Look its really simple, Concept 2 need to put a verified system in place for those that want to use it.

I pull a racing time and post the link to the results and rank it. This is exactly what I most years do. And you have a problem with that Bizar thinking.

For the rest forget about, c2 does not care, they want to keep as simply as possible. That argument is very valid.

[joe80]

I'm nowhere near the top of the metres board but generally row an average of 16km+ a day for a a final position of ~40th. 95%+ of my metres are via the C2log and would fit the OP's criteria for 'honest' results. However, there are times where an online logging is just not possible. For instance, a couple of years ago, Georgina Price & myself rowed a tandem 24 hours record in a public place. We noted our distances at the takeover points every 30 minutes and entered the totals manually. Should I just abandon the 160km+ rowed that day or can anyone suggest how the metres may be entered without arousing suspicion?

I agree that there should be some filter which could be applied to the honor board to allow a view of metres entered in a verified fashion.

Regards,

Joe