Results and Rankings.

[graeme]

"somewhat overscored"

To put "somewhat" in context, the difference between an equivalent person running Brown and Short Blue is around 100 points: equivalent to the difference between yourself and #1 in the rankings, or some 250 places further down the list.

[The Loofa]

Come on, Spookster, get to it!

No need Martin, I'm on the job already ...

David - are you still on this job? SOC event still has no ranking points

[awk]

Thanks greywolf, spookster, and Graeme - that helps understand what's going on. I've yet to receive a reply or acknowledgement from British Orienteering to my query, so am grateful for the speed of response here. What this is saying to me, though, is that it should be possible to correct anomalies like this - if you can identify that it's one course effectively being overscored.

The result of this overscoring is that you could run over a minute per kilometre slower on the Short Blue than on the Brown (surely sufficiently different in distance even), and still score higher ranking points. Not impressive.
Whatever the cause, it certainly left quite a few people somewhat unimpressed with the quality and credibility of the ranking scheme if post race conversations have been anything to go by - so needs sorting if this sort of view isn't to grow with this and other anomalies showing up.

[DJM]

David - are you still on this job? SOC event still has no ranking points

Come on, Spookster, get to it!

No need Martin, I'm on the job already ...

David - are you still on this job? SOC event still has no ranking points

Yes, but the ball is not in my court at the moment

[DJM]

Points now up for the SOC event, thanks to Mike Hamilton.

[SIman]

In that case I'm fairly sure that the problem is failure to type your BOF number into the results computer (even though you put it on a form).

At the Edinburgh Big Weekend I will post a list of all those runners whose BOF numbers are missing from their entries. At present that is approximately a third of the list. It would be a great help if everyone using OEntries could check that their profile includes their BOF number. We will do our best to copy BOF numbers from the entry slips for EOD (if they are there!)

[EddieH]

Interesting points for Edinburgh City. I was under the impression that it generally paid off to compete against older classes as the seed data bias is still there. Yet on the short course I achieved just about my record low score. I had had a good run until 2 unaccountable lapses when it became easier costing me over 2 minutes. However I would have had to run a further 4 minutes quicker in addition to cancelling those errors in order to get anything like typical points for me, something way beyond my capability.

Anomolies in this direction don't materially affect general ranking, but when such anomolies give high points they most certainly do.

[andypat]

Eddie - maybe you are built for stamina not speed?

I on the other hand.....

[redkite]

Mine look about right. Without a wrong side of wall at 125 I would have been about 1,000 which is my average recently.

[AlanB]

Mine were about right for Edinburgh: Sat was one point off my best score, Sun was slightly down which I put down to a slight muscle strain the day before.

[madmike]

My points seem quite high (for me) particularly given some mistakes - not that I'm complaining.

[EddieH]

You weren't on my course Mike, and as I don't know who AlanB is he may weel not be either.

[madmike]

See what you mean Eddie.

It may have been easier to score on middle as I got 5 points less than Scott did on long and he's normally so far in front of me as to be out of sight.

unless it is dark

[Scott]

I did have a pretty poor run on Saturday - the combination of fast running and big route-choice decisions was more than I could cope with - so I reckon my score is probably about right.

On the other hand I feel like I should have had a few more points for what was (by my standards) a decent run on Sunday, although I did make a right hash of one of the big route-choice legs there as well.

[awk]

It may have been easier to score on middle as I got 5 points less than Scott did on long and he's normally so far in front of me as to be out of sight.

I think your run was relatively better than you thought it was Mike - there were lots of mistakes being made. My points look about right to me compared to recent runs.

Being fairly ignorant about things ranking, I'm sure there is a straightforward answer, but I'm a bit surprised that having jotted down a few sets of points from recent events this morning, they've all changed tonight (gone lower unfortunately). Is there one (straightforward answer, that is)?