Croeso 2012

[SJC]

if John Eliteman negotiates a trouble-free run on easy terrain (where everyone's times are less spread out), should he really gain less ranking points than from a trouble-free run on difficult terrain?

Yes, as achieving the trouble-free run on difficult terrain is a more difficult task.

[sketchweppers]

[quote="Ali Wood]Would be fascinating to see if anyone in the bottom half of the results has noticed an enhancement to their rankings?[/quote]

I know there is a difference between the Croeso points and BO ranking points, but I was unfortunately not able to stay for the Aberystwyth Uni Urban event on the Saturday, and consequently ended up lower in the final table than competitors who I had beaten all the rest of the week. Those of us who are lower down the results tended to get a higher score on the Urban event because the times are all more compressed. The fastest runners got slightly lower scores and the slower runners got higher scores on that day.
I am not really bothered about my final rank, but just pointing out my observation. However for multi day events with lots of different type/style events it may be easier to use the Scottish 6 day scoring system - just like the Omnium.

[Jon Brooke]

I don't think you can directly compare your overall position at Croeso v Oban in terms of performance.

Yes I can - I made fewer mistakes and am running stronger than at this time last year. As it happens I also got closer to (or occasionally beat) some people who were above me in results last year. But my ranking points are, as someone else pointed out 50-60 down on Scottish 6 Day results.

I'd be interested to know whether:

a) this is an across the board phenomenon

b) when the adjustment might finish working through

Otherwise what is the point of ranking points system? If you are running better but getting lower points then the system isn't reflecting progress that people might be making, which I would imagine would have the opposite psychological effect to the one intended?

[SJC]

Otherwise what is the point of ranking points system? If you are running better but getting lower points then the system isn't reflecting progress that people might be making,

Isn't your position on the Ranking List more relevant than the actual Ranking scores ?
If you have lower scores but are higher up the list (other people's higher scores from last year will also have disappeared) then this does reflect progress.

[andypat]

I don't think you can directly compare your overall position at Croeso v Oban in terms of performance.

Yes I can - I made fewer mistakes and am running stronger than at this time last year. As it happens I also got closer to (or occasionally beat) some people who were above me in results last year. But my ranking points are, as someone else pointed out 50-60 down on Scottish 6 Day results.

Jon
You misunderstand me - I'm not disagreeing with your issue about ranking points or whether or not you are better now than last year, but using your relative finishing positions at Oban V Croeso is not proof of your improvement. My impression is that most of the people who attended both seem to have done better at Croeso, including many in your own age class, suggesting that the size and quality of the field at Croeso might be as relevant.

[Jon Brooke]

Isn't your position on the Ranking List more relevant than the actual Ranking scores ?

Yes of course, and if there was some small gradual adjustment going on then that would be fine but I hadn't noticed my points dropping until Croeso, where they plummeted. If there is some big adjustment going on then there is going to be a lot of turbulence in the system which kind of makes it a bit useless as any sort of reliable gauge as to one's standings.

Obviously it will be interesting to see what happens at the next ranking event I go to, but it still all seems a bit odd to me.

[Jon Brooke]

My impression is that most of the people who attended both seem to have done better at Croeso, including many in your own age class, suggesting that the size and quality of the field at Croeso might be as relevant.

Is it?

I thought the whole point of the ranking system was that it was supposed to produce scores that meant something regardless of which other competitors were there?

Can you not get the same sort of spread of scores if there are 50 people on your course as you could if there were 100 on the course?

Or can you only get a good score if everybody in the ranking system turns up?

[andypat]

I feel as though I'm running pretty well at the moment and managed to come 11th in the 45L (course 3) - V 21st at the Scottish 6 days last year

OK so 11th at Croeso is not necessarily a better performance than 21st at Oban, because there were (A) less people there and (B) less good people there.

Where in that did I mention rankings! I'm talking about your perception that you are a better orienteer this year because of the above two results.

[Ali Wood]

if John Eliteman negotiates a trouble-free run on easy terrain (where everyone's times are less spread out), should he really gain less ranking points than from a trouble-free run on difficult terrain?
...
...
Yes, as achieving the trouble-free run on difficult terrain is a more difficult task.

I would maintain my initial view: John Eliteman deserves just as many ranking points; why should he be penalised? It is those who have had trouble on their runs that deserve less ranking points. John has (probably) had a near perfect run, and his time is more of a reliable guide than anything else as to the worth of everyone else's runs (once spread has been taken into account)

[Jon Brooke]

Where in that did I mention rankings! I'm talking about your perception that you are a better orienteer this year because of the above two results.

Where did I mention that my perception of being a better orienteer this year was because of those two results.

I told you already that my orienteering is improving because I am making fewer mistakes and running faster and those are things I can gauge regardless of the results I achieve.

[andypat]

Where in that did I mention rankings! I'm talking about your perception that you are a better orienteer this year because of the above two results.

Where did I mention that my perception of being a better orienteer this year was because of those two results.

here?

Ranking points.
I feel as though I'm running pretty well at the moment and managed to come 11th in the 45L (course 3) - V 21st at the Scottish 6 days last year, but my best day only got me 1157 points whereas at the Scottish 6 days I had 3 scores over 1200.

but as I said - I'm not disagreeing with you re your ranking, and you may well be running better, all I did was point out that 11th at Croeso isnt necessarily a better result than 21st at the Scottish 6 days.

[Jon Brooke]

At the risk of boring everyone else on the board. Here it is with my emphasis instead of yours:

I feel as though I'm running pretty well at the moment and managed to come 11th in the 45L (course 3) - V 21st at the Scottish 6 days last year, but my best day only got me 1157 points whereas at the Scottish 6 days I had 3 scores over 1200.

I thought that the ranking system was supposed to give a kind of standardised score based on whichever other ranked people were at an event? So given that there were actually quite a few highly ranked runners at Croeso, even if not quite so many as at the S6D and that I did slightly better versus most of them, I am still at a loss to understand why my ranking points were relatively much lower?

[andypat]

Jon, I think the drift of ranking points downwards is some sort of technical phenomenon. I do undestand your main point and you are right.

I also think I am doing better this year than last in terms of my fitness and relative position with regard to regular opponents. Despite my relatively good results at Croeso none of my scores were counting ones. In fact my ranking actually went down slightly after all the Croeso scores were in. Then ironically the week after it shot up about 70 places with no competitons added, after all the scores for Oban (at which I perfromed relatively poorly but scored OK) expired! What this suggessts to me is that the scores I am getting now, while lower, are worth more in comparison to last years scores when complered with the scores of those around me.

[Jon Brooke]

OK - I've actually gone and read the document about how the ranking system works now - it's here: http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/images/uploaded/downloads/events_appendix_k.pdf

A couple of phrases leap out at me:

The aim of the computerised British Orienteering ranking scheme is to rank all regular and competent orienteers in order of orienteering ability. The hope is that this will spur the spirit of competition, thereby helping to raise both navigational and fitness standards.

The ranking scheme operates by using the performance of ranked runners on each course at an event to standardise the scores. This process ensures that points awarded to a runner are (as far as possible) dependent only upon the quality of the run and not who else turns up at the event.

Well, IMHO the fact that there are several bemused/disgruntled people on here (no doubt the vocal minority) who think that their scores have drifted markedly downward seems to go completely against the grain of the first para.

And the second para seems to answer the point made by some about the level of competition at the event.

The document then goes on to explain how the calculations work which includes lots of discussion about means and standard deviations that I don't understand (but if there are any statisticians on here (there must be surely in a forum full of orienteers?)) maybe someone could outline it in laymans language and expain the current drift.

However, my eye was caught by this one sentence in amongst all the mathematical stuff:

The current scores of all ranked runners are rebased after each event to ensure that the mean current score of all ranked runners is 1000 and the standard deviation of their current scores is 200. This prevents the scores drifting over time.

Clearly not!

[graeme]

OK - I've actually gone and read the document about how the ranking system works ...

Alas, that document explains how its supposed to work, but it isn't what was actually implemented (e.g. your scores aren't being continually rebased, as you can easily tell by the fact they stay as the same number). The "current scores" as defined in appendix K aren't published (nor is the implemented code) so its impossible to tell whether it would work.

However, from anecdotal evidence we see...

Scott and other M21s are seeing an upward drift in scores.
Jon, andypat and M45+ types are seeing a downward drift.
eddieH and I, who often "run up", get much lower points from racing M21 than M50s.

which suggests that the initial data was biased against M21s, and since it was based on mins/km, regardless of the distance run, that shouldn't be a surprise. The bias is slowly unravelling, but at the moment, looking at my ranking compared with my M21 "peers", it's about 200 points, so there's some way to go. Unless they reboot the system, it will take several years to equilibrate, even if they implement it correctly.