Should under 16's be on the ranking list

[King Penguin]

How difficult can it be to add a flag by course to show whether it is "ranked" or not ?
If all else fails, simply editing the BOF numbers out of the results of those courses not to be ranked would do the job.

[Gnitworp]

The National Rankings, sponsored by Peter Dominic, started in 1981. ........The youngest age class which has ever been on these lists was M/W19 which then became M/W20.

The nice wine hamper you got from PD for winning your category might have been considered unsuitable for Juniors

[SeanC]

However, software is not as clever as we are, courses are not always labelled White, Yellow, etc and it seems that there was no foolproof way of teaching the software to be able to distinguish between "rankable" and "non-rankable" courses.

As King Penguin says, adding a "this course at this event should be ranked" flag in the database is as near to foolproof for the computer as you can get. The problem then gets pushed onto the club results secretary who then decides whether a course should be ranked or not.

At this point some readers will think that this is a terrible idea, so a helpful user interface to guide the results secretary might be needed. Eg if the course name = "orange", '"yellow" or "white" then the "do not rank" box gets pre-ticked by the user interface. A typo might mean white courses get ranked, but there's always nopesport to out the unfortunate results secretary.

This flexibility would actually be a big improvement IMHO. Why so? Well the consensus of what is a rankable event is a moving thing is it not? 20 years ago few orienteers would have thought that street orienteering events with no colour coding should be ranking events. Also eg, night events, out this year, in next? So some guidelines might be needed (though these could be hidden in the user interface). Guidelines are a lot easier and cheaper to change than computer systems.*

*in theory.

[frostbite]

I am the same age as Tim and I can also remember being on the ranking list in M11, prior to the Peter Dominic list. That must have been 1980 I guess.

[EddieH]

DJM wrote: "So then someone observed that, if the youngest competitors were not given rankings points, then this would eliminate virtually all the "non-rankable" courses from being ranked as only in extraordinary circumstances would there be 10 or more previously ranked runners on the course.

I don't think you can have it quite right here as when the rankings were changed there was no minimum of 10 people on a course rule, (which resulted in a rather young Cat Taylor gaining a humungous load of points when injured pottering roud an orange course!)

It was anomolies such as this that led to the introduction of the minimum of 10 competitors rule.

Or shall I rewrite that especialy for DJM:

It was anomolies' such as this that led to the introduction of the minimum of 10 competitor's rule.

[charles2]

Yes, under 16s should be ranked. It wouldn't be hard to add a flag to state whether course should be ranked as others have stated.
The idea that to solve the anomaly of ranking white, yellow, orange courses by the creation of a rule that anyone M/W15 or younger cannot be ranked is absurd (and completely the wrong way to solve the problem) and as is noted creates another anomaly.
A youngster aged 15 yrs 364 days cannot be ranked if they race on 31 December and if a race takes place a day later another youngster could be ranked aged 15 yrs 1 day. At least I would have thought that they could have made it that you could only be ranked once you reach 16.

[GML]

At least I would have thought that they could have made it that you could only be ranked once you reach 16.

I think you will find that they have i.e. M/W16 competitors today get ranking points for events that happen on or after their 16th birthday, but not before (thereby revealing competitors' DoBs, at least to within a week or so).

[EddieH]

Not so GML. I also thought it was, but all our classy Scottish second year M16s started being ranked from the beginning of this year when they were still 15.

[Homer]

I am the same age as Tim and I can also remember being on the ranking list in M11, prior to the Peter Dominic list. That must have been 1980 I guess.

I'm a similar age. If I remember correctly, the rankings in the early 80's were based on just the following 6 events: JK, British, Northern, Midland, Southern and Scottish Champs. Best 4 to count. Something very similar to what I'd like to see for the UK O League...

The Peter Dominic hamper was well appreciated as a 19 year old student. We had a great party if I remember correctly.

I have no problem with under 16s being ranked.

[GML]

Not so GML. I also thought it was, but all our classy Scottish second year M16s started being ranked from the beginning of this year when they were still 15.

You are right Eddie - my apologies everyone for spreading misinformation. (And the rules do indeed say that all top year M/W16s and older score ranking points).

[SeanC]

Well, this thread has been fun. I've learned a few things, not just about orienteering.

This question is really to those on the relevant BOF committees who wander through these pages. What's on the ranking list 'roadmap' (IT business bull speak for planned future changes)?

The new ranking list has been the standout success out of the various BOF initiatives over the past few years. It would be a shame to see it fossilize and be exactly the same in 20 years. Obviously most people would like to see under 16's ranked somehow, but you could list a number of other desirables for the road map.. off the top of my head:

- a handicap ranking... who's the best taking into account age/sex
- an improvers ranking... who's the most improved in the country
- personal profiling... ie rather as Ollie has done... see all your results and your trends.
- push self-marketing.. alerting new members who've done a ranking event, but might not have seen the list, or people who have gone down from 6 to 5 events... hurry up and do another.
- club or team competitions... somehow, I don't know how.

This sounds like some expensive software development, would we pay? Could the ranking list software be opened up as open source to suitable volunteers (there are lots of computer programmer orienteers). Volunteers would be cheap and could get through a lot of work, but potentially less democratic if the volunteers feel they can decide the plan because they are volunteering.

So... what's on the roadmap?

[madmike]

The new ranking list has been the standout success out of the various BOF initiatives over the past few years.

It is very interesting how different orienteers can have completely different perspectives!

I thought the change in ranking lists was as far from a success as it was possible to be(I acknowledge this may be a view held only by me).

Why do I say this? It is due to the fact I was really motivated by the old ranking list with its separate classifications for short courses runners and I also liked the page showing all your results, which let you know when you had points to defend. Likewise the old UK Masters Cup was a substantial motivator to travel to do national events and BNOC etc.

I can see where you are coming from but would, most respectfully, completely and utterly disagree with the quote above.

Oh the good old days..................

[JK]

I'm a similar age. If I remember correctly, the rankings in the early 80's were based on just the following 6 events: JK, British, Northern, Midland, Southern and Scottish Champs. Best 4 to count. Something very similar to what I'd like to see for the UK O League...

The Peter Dominic hamper was well appreciated as a 19 year old student. We had a great party if I remember correctly.

I have no problem with under 16s being ranked.

I remember that as well as Badge events there was a level higher which were ranking events. I thought it was larger than the list above though.

It seems strange for 1st year M16s not to be ranked when 2nd year are. I am sure that is for a good reason, and the same reason as M14- not being ranked but I have noe idea what it is.

JK

[SeanC]

Madmike - Well I judge the success by the amount of chat on here, and by the complaints when clubs don't submit their results.

I guess the new system is much better for those that like local events and go to a few (enough) regionals/districts, which the old system didn't really cover .

Maybe what you're looking for could be provided by a UKOL league, and (with changes) could make that league more popular?

[madmike]

Madmike - Well I judge the success by the amount of chat on here, and by the complaints when clubs don't submit their results.

I guess the new system is much better for those that like local events and go to a few (enough) regionals/districts, which the old system didn't really cover .

Maybe what you're looking for could be provided by a UKOL league, and (with changes) could make that league more popular?

Yes fair point SeanC - I, of course, have made an entirely subjective judgement (it's all about me you know ) and I am of the old school if it wasn't broken don't try to fix it else you will break it - and for me it wasn't broken and now is!