Discussion: Any Ranking Database Issues
in: Orienteering; General
Nov 13, 2009 6:34 PM
#
While "feet " is checking the O-scores ranking system and preparing his evaluation, I would like to gather the opinions about the features any ranking should have. Doesn't matter what algorithm will be inside.
Please be specific what you want to see as a front end and do not worry about feasibility of it.
It is difficult to make somebody happy if he wishes for something, you give it to him, but he don't even look and keeps complaining about lack of it.
Please be specific what you want to see as a front end and do not worry about feasibility of it.
It is difficult to make somebody happy if he wishes for something, you give it to him, but he don't even look and keeps complaining about lack of it.
Nov 13, 2009 6:35 PM
#
I tried to grab all complains I saw about rankings and design a system which would address most of the complaints. Anybody tried to use them?
Here they are line by line.
@ jagge: I must say I am glad we have had quite different kind of ranking system here. We count only 3 best races during spring/summer and five races for rest of the year. So you could run ~30 races and only 5 best are counted.
= I implemented that. If you flip last right drop down in the top row (T/~T) it will give you ranking based on the best 4 races without tail
@jteutsch
Orienteer A might consistently beats orienteer B on technically challenging courses while orienteer B beats orienteer A on long distance courses with lots of trail running.
= I implemented this to some extent by introducing "Race type" flip
You can select Sprints only, Classic only and Both. and watch how your ranking score and standing changes. It changes a lot and it is traceable and analyzable. - Play with it before complaining. Different selection strategies can be worked in couple of mouse clicks
.
@ All
One's performance during A-meet is different from performance at local event
= I took care about this also by letting you select A-meets only or all events - compare the results here and enjoy also.
@ All
Many people like to see performance by course not by class, to be able to compare themselves with other people running same color
= I implemented this by offering "Search by Color" drop down. This allows selection of the races of one color only and present picture one maybe used to. Default search is by class, but it offers "All gender" option. go play and compare.
Here they are line by line.
@ jagge: I must say I am glad we have had quite different kind of ranking system here. We count only 3 best races during spring/summer and five races for rest of the year. So you could run ~30 races and only 5 best are counted.
= I implemented that. If you flip last right drop down in the top row (T/~T) it will give you ranking based on the best 4 races without tail
@jteutsch
Orienteer A might consistently beats orienteer B on technically challenging courses while orienteer B beats orienteer A on long distance courses with lots of trail running.
= I implemented this to some extent by introducing "Race type" flip
You can select Sprints only, Classic only and Both. and watch how your ranking score and standing changes. It changes a lot and it is traceable and analyzable. - Play with it before complaining. Different selection strategies can be worked in couple of mouse clicks
.
@ All
One's performance during A-meet is different from performance at local event
= I took care about this also by letting you select A-meets only or all events - compare the results here and enjoy also.
@ All
Many people like to see performance by course not by class, to be able to compare themselves with other people running same color
= I implemented this by offering "Search by Color" drop down. This allows selection of the races of one color only and present picture one maybe used to. Default search is by class, but it offers "All gender" option. go play and compare.
Nov 13, 2009 6:55 PM
#
As the major concern I see is various courses and various techniques needed to run these courses. Please consider analyzing at least two pages below
Sprint Only Standings
Classic Course Standing
Compare Nat Lyons and Oystein Sorensen
Ranking of both at sprint is about the same.
Ranking of them at Classic is #1 and #41
Is it good enough difference to explain different skill sets?
Sprint Only Standings
Classic Course Standing
Compare Nat Lyons and Oystein Sorensen
Ranking of both at sprint is about the same.
Ranking of them at Classic is #1 and #41
Is it good enough difference to explain different skill sets?
Nov 13, 2009 7:13 PM
#
krechet--are you multiple people? Are you related to Ian Smith? Otherwise, how do you explain your throughput and multithreading?
Nov 13, 2009 7:15 PM
#
Just have a quiet time at work....and interesting socio-physiological project to take part in... :)
Nov 13, 2009 8:07 PM
#
Here, I'll bite - but I've got a slightly different objective...-)
ROC held two sets of events during the year, the ROC 2009 Series, and the ROC 2009 Sprint Series.
Each series included 5 separate events - either a more standard WYOBGR course, or a single Sprint course (combined with a separate Score-O over the summer). Competitors were ranked based on their best 4 performances.
For this season, we scored 10 points for 1st down to 1 point for 11th and none beyond that (and DNF/DSQ). A perfect season was 40 points.
In order to support those that set courses or acted as meet directors, we gave them the average of their finishes (as they were unable to compete in that event).
This was all fine and well - and appeared to encourage participants to continue to come out to events. We had a couple classes locked up in week 4, but many stayed competitive to the very last race. (and we had a couple ties)
It's fairly easy to see that if Fred beats John consistently, he's got more points - but it doesn't take into account the "scale" of those victories, or how one may finish "close" in a populated division and get just a point or two.
Next year we're considering the best 3 of 5 for the practical reason that it appeared to be difficult to get people out to 4 events.
We're looking at ideas to crown a winner based on 5 races with the best 3 scored. Each competitor runs the same course in each of the 5, so there is no need to cross Red to Brown, but two individual participants may never face each other. (Fred runs in the 1st, and 2nd event and sets the 5th course, John runs the 3rd and 4th and is meet director for the first;-)
And - it does need to be simple enough that I can write up a column after the 3rd week and talk about how they are doing and who needs to do what to win in the last two events - without invoking the BCS algorithm...-)
The most populated classification is Red (no Blue) with about two dozen participants that will compete in at least 2-3 events.
Does that help? Advice welcome.
ROC held two sets of events during the year, the ROC 2009 Series, and the ROC 2009 Sprint Series.
Each series included 5 separate events - either a more standard WYOBGR course, or a single Sprint course (combined with a separate Score-O over the summer). Competitors were ranked based on their best 4 performances.
For this season, we scored 10 points for 1st down to 1 point for 11th and none beyond that (and DNF/DSQ). A perfect season was 40 points.
In order to support those that set courses or acted as meet directors, we gave them the average of their finishes (as they were unable to compete in that event).
This was all fine and well - and appeared to encourage participants to continue to come out to events. We had a couple classes locked up in week 4, but many stayed competitive to the very last race. (and we had a couple ties)
It's fairly easy to see that if Fred beats John consistently, he's got more points - but it doesn't take into account the "scale" of those victories, or how one may finish "close" in a populated division and get just a point or two.
Next year we're considering the best 3 of 5 for the practical reason that it appeared to be difficult to get people out to 4 events.
We're looking at ideas to crown a winner based on 5 races with the best 3 scored. Each competitor runs the same course in each of the 5, so there is no need to cross Red to Brown, but two individual participants may never face each other. (Fred runs in the 1st, and 2nd event and sets the 5th course, John runs the 3rd and 4th and is meet director for the first;-)
And - it does need to be simple enough that I can write up a column after the 3rd week and talk about how they are doing and who needs to do what to win in the last two events - without invoking the BCS algorithm...-)
The most populated classification is Red (no Blue) with about two dozen participants that will compete in at least 2-3 events.
Does that help? Advice welcome.
Nov 13, 2009 8:39 PM
#
What you have is a nice and simple system and it is good because it is simple. I think appreciation of the course setters is very important on the local level. It is slightly difficult to justify it at high profile event...
At BAOC we have course setter award for the sprint series, by awarding the setter and event director with their one best score of the season.
As for the drawback of such points down system, main one which rings bell for me was following
Top runners compete for being best and usually they get a lot of points while they do not care, as they just want to be on the top.
Those who are at the middle of the pack and have no chance to be on the podium, care about the point much more, because this is the only way for them to compare (Example I got 3 of 7th places and one 13th, while you got 1 of 4th and 3 of 10th who is better?)
These middle-of-the packers are not happy when everybody after 10th place get 0. There is no thrill and no rating for them.
And they are often very important people, who want their part of thrill.
At BAOC we have course setter award for the sprint series, by awarding the setter and event director with their one best score of the season.
As for the drawback of such points down system, main one which rings bell for me was following
Top runners compete for being best and usually they get a lot of points while they do not care, as they just want to be on the top.
Those who are at the middle of the pack and have no chance to be on the podium, care about the point much more, because this is the only way for them to compare (Example I got 3 of 7th places and one 13th, while you got 1 of 4th and 3 of 10th who is better?)
These middle-of-the packers are not happy when everybody after 10th place get 0. There is no thrill and no rating for them.
And they are often very important people, who want their part of thrill.
Nov 14, 2009 2:37 AM
#
This allows selection of the races of one color only and present picture one maybe used to
To clarify: does this re-rank said person using just the data from that color?
To clarify: does this re-rank said person using just the data from that color?
This discussion thread is closed.