My suspicion is that the exclusion of outliers in the new calculations makes this worse, especially for major events that attract people from all over the country. Many of those that don’t have experience of the Lakes or Scotland will perform much worse than their ranking suggests when attending a major event there. (I know; way back in 1983 I thought I was getting to be a competent orienteer in the SE, but was out around 3 hours at the Rusland and Finsthwaite JK).
Inevitably I can provide most information about this in my own case (sorry). I had an exceptionally good Scottish 6-days this year. My best result was winning the M70/W55 course 24 on day 3 by a margin of nearly 9 minutes. In the previous ranking list this was my best ranking score, but now it is (just) below my top-six ranking scores, with my current best score from what felt like a fairly ordinary result very close to the average time on a brown course.
My guess would be that at such events a large number of people are considered outliers as their score on the first pass is more than 100 points less than their average. I saw in the previous thread
graeme wrote: 100 points is a big number, I encourage interested people to look at their own scores and let us know if anything the computer thinks is an outlier is actually typical.
I suspect Nopesporters may not have responded to that if they consider their disastrous runs in Scotland were not typical; but a fair ranking system should include them. Is there a case for increasing the cutoff up from 100 if a high proportion of finishers are excluded?
Do others feel that their good runs at S6D have not been recognised in the rankings?
Peter Gorvett