Springtime in Shropshire

[HOCOLITE]

The SINS results were posted by BOF admin as they had effectively barred the normal people from posting the resukts- something to do with the registration of the events. However the person posting them doesn't seem to have appreciated that mispunches do not get put in the results...... thus the rather large anomalies and bogus points.

[awk]

I'm disappointed and surprised that none of my 3 SINS ranking runs get within 50 points of my top 6. Even more surprised that Nottingham is 40 off my top 6.

Just 6 off mine - about 30 seconds worth at this event (but also 24 points my best - just under 2 mins down). It's been touched on before, but races where times come in as packed as that are not going to generate big points if you lose any time whatsoever (and I did here!). My biggest scores have all been where the times have been spread out, usually because of technical difficulty - e.g. British Champs, Hugset Middle Distance (where I made soooo many mistakes, but others simply made more!).
I'm not finding that beating people ahead of me on the rankings list seems to be having as big an effect as I had hoped for/expected.

[madmike]

I'm not finding that beating people ahead of me on the rankings list seems to be having as big an effect as I had hoped for/expected.

That's exactly what I feel awk after SinS.

[Adventure Racer]

Regarding the pipeline, not that obvious a route on Brown (at least not one I considered - maybe that's how I managed fastest split on that leg), hence I hadn't even spotted it and wondered what you were on about. However I do have a little local knowledge having biked around there, and wouldn't have considered it as an option knowing about the locked gate, barbed wire etc. Should really have mapped that as an impassable fence!

[maprun]

I agree with the earlier comments about ranking points, I consistently beat others above me, but ended up within 10 points of scoring on two days. In retrospect, the areas were not technical enough to spread everyone out and the rankings look similar to the Hambledon Southerns, where even the hills did't seem to effect the average/spread. Anyway it was enjoyable trying.

[awk]

the areas were not technical enough to spread everyone out and the rankings look similar to the Hambledon Southerns, where even the hills did't seem to effect the average/spread. Anyway it was enjoyable trying.

Agree. Personally, I rate my run at the Southerns as one of my best of the year, but it doesn't even rank in my top 8 runs in the past five months. It's made me even more convinced that the rankings are fun (certainly much more so than in the previous format), and quite a useful incentive/measure, but I can't take them that seriously.

[EddieH]

Regarding ranking points I think you are all ignoring something that a concensus here seemed to agree on recently. That is that in my sort of age range we now get far lower points for an equivalent run compared to last year. Assuming this to be so you should expect to need a scintillating, rather than a good run to score worthwhile points. If this is not goingto be a continuous decline one should expect that, once we've dropped our high scores from last year we will be able to achieve usable scores again.

[DM]

Awesome performance from Steve Dempsey on Short Brown 2 on High Vinnals. 7.1k in 31 minutes is less than half the time of second place, and a pile of points that puts him ahead of me on the ranking list.

If only he had completed the course.

Don't knock Steve's performance, when he gets it right he's really fast, for an oldie.

Seriously though how does a result like this get through, destroys confidence in the ranking system for me

[AndyC]

I've just looked at the BOF ranking list (actually checking a clubmate's age) and realised that my points for SinS are now higher than the initial posting (make no more sense in terms of perceived performance) presumably because the anomalies identified above have been sorted out?? (wasn't on S Brown I admit)

Others have probably already noticed.....

[madmike]

no Andy seems to be more errors - perhaps someone can explain this, on short blue 2, where a 91 minute run gets 963 points and 41 minutes gets 722 and as I recall DJM was the winner not 67th!

63 Christine Collins WCH F 1960 01:31:13 963
64 Angus Milne BOK M 1996 01:32:59
65 Michael Hill HAVOC M 1954 01:37:47 963
66 Caroline Potter BOK F 1962 01:47:28 962
67 David May SLOW M 1946 41:26:00 722
68 Jim Prowting TVOC M 1946 42:29:00 715
69 Ian Gamlen COBOC M 1965 44:39:00 702
70 Graeme Beavers HOC M 1959 45:05:00 700
71 Ian Peirce SARUM M 1944 45:38:00 696
72 Sara Campbell DEE F 1965 45:47:00 695

I was 50 points less than I anticipated and it is now 450 less for Brampton Bryan

[AndyC]

OK another theory blown.
I also realised that 20 seconds faster (Maximum) at Brampton Bryan would have got me another ranking point while I could have run 3 minutes slower without losing any. Clearly a interesting algorithm

[Marco Polo]

no Andy seems to be more errors - perhaps someone can explain this, on short blue 2, where a 91 minute run gets 963 points and 41 minutes gets 722 and as I recall DJM was the winner not 67th!

63 Christine Collins WCH F 1960 01:31:13 963
64 Angus Milne BOK M 1996 01:32:59
65 Michael Hill HAVOC M 1954 01:37:47 963
66 Caroline Potter BOK F 1962 01:47:28 962
67 David May SLOW M 1946 41:26:00 722
68 Jim Prowting TVOC M 1946 42:29:00 715
69 Ian Gamlen COBOC M 1965 44:39:00 702
70 Graeme Beavers HOC M 1959 45:05:00 700
71 Ian Peirce SARUM M 1944 45:38:00 696
72 Sara Campbell DEE F 1965 45:47:00 695

I was 50 points less than I anticipated and it is now 450 less for Brampton Bryan

There look to be errors reading the times into the ranking system such that everyone less than 60 minutes is credited with having taken 60 times as long as they actually did (E.G. 45 minutes becomes 45 hours)

(same for Blue courses on a quick peek, so probably all the others.)

This needs fixing quickly

[King Penguin]

That should seriously foul up the distribution and points - or are they all discounted as being too extreme ? Agree it needs fixing, but probably has to be at central office if they had to upload them because the officials were denied access. I'm sure such glaring errors would not have existed in the export from the results software. I suspect someone has imported to Excel or similar, tweaked and not checked time formats when taking from there to BO rankings.

[AndyC]

I've taken a screenshot to record my temporarily high position. The adjustment of the mistakes I've seen will make a significant difference to the totals from the event.
I have to wonder why BOF apparently prevented HOC (who I'm sure would have got it right) entering the results?

[dorien]

Andypat wrote

I find it helps your ranking points more if you beat better orienteers (ie they have a bad run)

.

Certainly helps when the better orienteers all take more than two days.