Results and Rankings.

[roadrunner]

...it's average of all scores, not best six, used in the calculations...

I hadn't realised that - so if you have a bad run at one event, it doesn't affect your own points (unless you haven't had six better runs), but it affects the calculation of everyone else's points. This doesn't sound quite right to me, though maybe the effect isn't very great.

It's a bit surprising that there are still such anomalies, since the seed data should have a decreasing effect. Could it be that there isn't as much mixing between the courses as expected? If one group of people always run Blue, for example, and another group always run Green, there's nothing as I understand it to bring the ranking points for the two courses into step.

[Adventure Racer]

We (think we) know there's a seed data effect...although it's difficult to tell whether it is entirely responsible for this size of anomaly...but fixing it would require rewinding and starting again, I'm not sure now much BOF enthusiasm there is for that...

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "rewinding and starting again", but you can completely change the system and generate new rankings from the existing data, thus having just as long a period of "live running" with a new system as with an old. All it requires is computing time.

Then again the best way to get rid of the problem with seed data is to effectively completely remove it. You do this by running the ranking system iteratively on the year's worth of data actually used to generate rankings. Repeat until you get self-consistency.

[King Penguin]

...it's average of all scores, not best six, used in the calculations...

I too thought it was best 6, and I am sure I have seen several posts to this effect.

If average of all, wouldn't those with less than 6 results be in about the right place in the list, rather than much lower down ?

[Scott]

The best six scores are used when ranking people in the ranking list, but when calculating the points scored at a new event it is the average of all of a competitor's scores in the previous year that are used, not just the average of the best six. If that makes sense.

[Fourth]

.

[awk]

The rankings for Pike Of Blisco (LOC) event weren't put up in time, despite a prompting e-mail. Its a shame because it was very enjoyable and I did very well..

In time for what?

[mappingmum]

to meet the submission deadline for the results to be included in the rankings system, one would assume. 2 weeks isn't it?

[Spookster]

to meet the submission deadline for the results to be included in the rankings system, one would assume. 2 weeks isn't it?

According to the Guidelines it's 7 days. In fact the system allows submission somewhat later than that. However, normally event results go up within hours or at most a day or two of the event, so not uploading them to the results system a week later means they've been forgotten about...

[Familytaxi driver]

So the rankings are further skewed by the fact that not all events that should count towards them are actually used in producing the figures
Shame as I also got to the Pike O Bisco event and didn't do too badly and was looking forward to (hopefully) moving a little up the rankings by my own efforts .

[TimField]

Pike O Bisco results have been submited to BOF tonight, so should be in Thursday's recalculation.

Apoligies for the delay.

Tim Field

[Familytaxi driver]

Thank You
They seem to be in the rankings already and I've clawed up a very few places. No doubt I'll slide down again tomorrow morning.
Note to self - train harder before the next regional event.

[EddieH]

I thought that most of the anomolies had been ironed out, but Culbin has produced a shocker. Despite a phenomonal quality field on brown the highest points score of all went to light green, and had our 13 year old been eligible for points he would have been amongst Oli's top 6 scores.

[NeilC]

Also interesting to note that Dave Rollins has leapt into the top 20 with not a single forest-based event in his scoring events. Horses for courses or is their some other bias in certain types of event? Not that I'm too bothered - like many others I like the ranking list, feel that it gives a pretty good representation of relative ability but appreciate that it has many flaws.

[RCB]

Now that Dave Rollins is back to full fitness it would be great to see him claiming even higher ranking points at some of the forest events however, he often misses out on some of the more popular events in support of the British Team.

Why not return to the system in place in the 90s where National events were weighted 1.1 as opposed to 1.0 for regional events? This encouraged the best orienteers to travel to National events knowing that they attracted higher ranking points. I'm not sure of the technical detail and whether or not the current ranking list could incorporate this.

[DJM]

EddieH said

I thought that most of the anomolies had been ironed out

Two or three more have been identified recently (largely as a result of IanD's posting a few weeks ago) and corrections will be updated when an opportunity arises to do so.

The most important anomaly arises where there are between 10 and 20 previously ranked runners on a course (which applied to the LGreen at Culbin) where a "small course" formula comes into the points calculations. It's now agreed that, now that there need to be 10 previously ranked runners for a course to be ranked, this formula is superfluous.