Another negative topic!

[andypat]

Producer: "How would you feel about making a change?"
Garth: "We fear change."

[guest960504]

I put away some time each day in the evening to go through the ranking list data with my hot milk. I was aghast to see the discrepancies in event weight and to here of this "trail" race has taken a serious effect on my blood pressure which my gp has warned me about on several occasions. What happens if my ranking falls as a result of these errors? I don't dare think about it.

[NFKleanne]

rankings quite good at moment. some how I'm 35th out of the club (about 75) instead of my usual 72nd/73rd ish. I don't know how they work, but like seeing my name above some very good orienteers!

[buzz]

I don't think the validity of the ranking system has ever been a question, it's not...

Have any of your/these concerns been raised with BO(F)?

I recall raising some specific issues early on and making the general point about weighting - I think there was a request for comments via the web site. Anyway I got an acknowledgement (from Mike Hamilton I think).

It just seems so obvious that major events should be weighted for all sorts of reasons.

[Homer]

It just seems so obvious that major events should be weighted for all sorts of reasons.

Agreed. The mathematical purists just won't have it though...

[Gnitworp]

I'd find the list much less interesting and meaningful as a measure of my relative ability if selected events were weighted by an arbitrarily chosen factor, and people's scores become influenced by their itinerancy.

[Tatty]

I can't understand how the winner of the Men's Short race at the London City race got more points than the winner of the Men's Long race

[Gnitworp]

Genetic engineering?

[awk]

I don't know about weightings etc, but I do find it a lot easier to score ranking points in the north than in the south (and I'm rreally surprised how low my score is from London - one of my best runs both relatively and absolutely this year - compared to races earlier this year).

[King Penguin]

Me too. I'm making less mistakes, getting higher placings and yet lower scores.
As I have said before I am convinced the renormalising of the calculations is levelling everyone out. If we wait long enough will we all have 6,000 points ?

[Tatty]

I wish!

[SJC]

Me too. I'm making less mistakes, getting higher placings and yet lower scores.

But does this really matter if it is happening to everyone. You will still stay in the same place in the ranking list as it will never reach the point where we all score 1,000 points at every event.

[buzz]

I'd find the list much less interesting and meaningful as a measure of my relative ability if selected events were weighted by an arbitrarily chosen factor, and people's scores become influenced by their itinerancy.

There's nothing arbitrary about weighting level A events....

There are more rewards (trophies, prizes, selection, prestige), this leads to more preparation and effort (better performances from high ranked athletes)

The rewards, status and atmosphere of the events leads to more pressure which makes it harder to perform.

Level A events should be of higher standard so less likely to be influenced by planning / mapping issues etc.

They have larger fields so less likely to be influenced by statistical anomolies (such as high ranked athletes using events for training or recovering from injuries).

[graeme]

...all of which tells you better events give you more reliable ranking scores, which nobody doubts.

But then multiplying that score by a random number doesn't make it more reliable

If you honestly think there's nothing arbitrary about weighting, then you'll be able tell us what the non-arbitrary weighting factor is, and why. Wont you?

[Gnitworp]

Another relevant thought: doesn't the new, all-inclusive ranking list depend on the intermingling of age classes in lower-level events for its constantly improving credibilty? In Level A Events, people run in class with no 'cross-fertilisation' so to speak. Weighting these events would damage the process.