Fastest Results Uploads 2011

[Clive Coles]

Thanks for this tip-off Paul

Code: Select all
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/f ... &assoc=soa
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/f ... ?assoc=soa
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/f ... ?club=ecko

I bet the fixturesfeed facility has been available for use for months. It's such a shame, having spent the money to develop the facility, that BOF don't appear to see the need to publicise that the facility exists.

I have passed the news around members in East Anglia and installed the links in my bookmark toolbar. It's great to now have a "one click" way of getting event details without having to dig down through various club web pages. Every club web design is different, some great, some """"y. I am sure all loved by their respective creators.

[Clive Coles]

It seems that the new navigation & racing incentive scheme only applies to colour coded events. Your problem Kokko in regard to uploading score fixtures is possibly different to Pete's

I agree it's a shame score events cannot be featured in some way on the BOF results system. Time for clubs who stage them to ask BOF for something to be done.

[IanD]

Some clubs upload provisional results to their own websites immediately, and then wait a few days for queries to be made and resolved before declaring the results final and uploading them to the BOF site.

Is this now agreed to be bad practice?

If not, then your table is pretty meaningless.

Certainly when I want to see the results of events I have competed in, I look at the organising club's website. It's the speed of upload to those which counts as far as I'm concerned.

[Sloop]

I agree - speed onto the club website is what matters. However, if the speed onto the BOF website is NEVER, then I agree with the comments that this is very poor form, and it will usually mean the event has been mis-represented to its customers.

Further, speed of courses onto Routegadget is of significant interest to me, as I have usually downloaded my GPS data as soon as my computer is switched on, and like to see exactly where I went while everything is completely fresh. A surprising number of clubs don't seem to have anything at all on Routegadget - which is cutting their planners and controllers out of the very best source of feedback.

[usuallylast]

Admittedly it can sometimes take a day or two to get an event on to RouteGadget - waiting for final results and so on - but I wish runners would be less shy about uploading their routes, good, bad or indifferent. It really does help with post race analysis and, as has been said, is particularly useful for planners. I also live in hope that someone will have made an even bigger mess of their course than me....

[AndyC]

What I hate is finding that someone has made a real disaster of their route choice and navigation in general but still beaten me

[dorien]

Some clubs upload provisional results to their own websites immediately, and then wait a few days for queries to be made and resolved before declaring the results final and uploading them to the BOF site.

Is this now agreed to be bad practice?

Clearly the club website will give much more detail and that this should come first. The point of BOF upload is to provide the ranking points. Here's two reasons why I think this should also be quick.

First, rapid ranking points is a courtesy to those competitors who care about them. I do: not just because I like to set myself pointless targets in the rankings, but also because raw results aren't that helpful if you're in the middle of the pack. Knowing that I came 19th out of 43 doesn't really tell me whether I had a good run or not, nor does comparing with a couple of mates who may have had untypical days. Knowing that I scored 1080 tells me that I had a good day. (Subject to all the statistical flaws and seeding issues discussed many times.) This knowledge tells me how to think about my tactics, splits and routes. I'd much rather have this information on Sunday evening, than still be waiting 10 days later when I've almost forgotten the event.

Second, publishing the ranking points can itself reveal errors. The 1580 Ranking Points!!! problem wouldn't have come to light no matter how long folks had looked at the results on the club website.

So my preference is get them up to both club website and BOF, let all the corrections get sorted out, and the resubmit when they're all correct. Is there a flaw in this?

[NeilC]

A possible flaw is that a club having rushed to get results sent to BOF may then consider it a done deal and not check properly for errors (unless they are notified of any). A possible example is the LEI (a club praised for submitting quickly) event on Dec 28th which seems to have the same person 20th and 21st on the Brown - the club website appears to have the correct result.

[Pete_Bog]

A possible flaw is that a club having rushed to get results sent to BOF may then consider it a done deal and not check properly for errors (unless they are notified of any). A possible example is the LEI (a club praised for submitting quickly) event on Dec 28th which seems to have the same person 20th and 21st on the Brown - the club website appears to have the correct result.

Thanks for the correction. We are checking the results and will update as appropriate.

[PG]

Which do you prefer: fast or right?

I usually find that the first upload attempt to BOF shows a number of problems, usually mostly missing membership numbers, but occasionally completely wrong names (husband and wife swapping e-cards is one that comes to mind).

I very rarely complete the first upload, but use the output to fill the gaps and check before the final upload. Would people rather have wrong results up quickly, then a change later on, which might involve completely different ranking points (it did when an the elite husband apparently had a slow run on a green course)

[graeme]

Which do you prefer: fast or right?

Not necessarily an either/or - fast can give you several hundred pairs of eyes to notice errors. Which makes it more likely to end up right.

[Pete_Bog]

A possible flaw is that a club having rushed to get results sent to BOF may then consider it a done deal and not check properly for errors (unless they are notified of any). A possible example is the LEI (a club praised for submitting quickly) event on Dec 28th which seems to have the same person 20th and 21st on the Brown - the club website appears to have the correct result.

Thanks for the correction. We are checking the results and will update as appropriate.

Both Club and BOF data now updated and hopefully correct.

Apparently there are two dibbers registered to the same member of the family. This was picked up at download, but the BOF number was not amended at that time.

[pete.owens]

I see TVOC are going all out for the record for fastest results upload ever!

[dorien]

TVOC's points won't appear on my table until the event actually happens on 21 Jan. At that point they'll score 2800, which would put them comfortably at the top of the league - except it's a level D so it won't count. However, it's really useful to see the results so far ahead of the event - when I'm deciding whether to go, I'll already know that I'm going to have a pretty good day.

Marginally more seriously: TVOC's CATI on Saturday had nearly 50 club runners on the Green course, not far off what you'd expect at a level C. If ranking points are a useful analysis tool, is there any reason for British Orienteering not to calculate the theoretical points for level D's when clubs have gone to the trouble of uploading? They wouldn't count, but could be interesting. I'd guess it would be a one-line change to BOF's software application.