Event to results-on-the-web time

[Ed]

BOF already does host the results for all ranking events

well, sort of:
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/arch/people/m-c ... .list.html

and it requires uploading in a standard format...

all it needs is a better interface (i.e. one showing times in mm:ss rather than decimal minutes!)...

as for BOF hosting club websites - that already happens in Norway and Sweden (not BOF; NOF and SOFT).

But then you wouldn't get the really horrible, badly designed websites.

On second thoughts, this is BOF and websites we're talking about

[Godders]

Interesting use of the word "English" there godders!

Well the password is a Scottish forest, and hasn't been used for any big events since the 95 six day.

[Mrs H.]

Oh it's just me be paranoid then - It read like "blonde" - being both English and blonde (and a housewife) I sometimes feel I have to fight my corner

[Neil M37]

BOF already does host the results for all ranking events

well, sort of

They do - sort of. Except there are no junior results, not all event organisers submit results and the history only goes back 1 year. Older events are available back to 2001 at least, there just isn't an index for them eg http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/arch/people/m-c ... nt/85.html

This could be developed into a proper results service but the it needs to be very easy to load the results and get it right.

[Copepod]

Just to add - the 2 events for which I am still hoping for results on the web were both Saturday low key, introductory events, which is precisely why I took along my sister, 2 neices, mother & 2 German friends, all new to orienteering. I reckon they will come again, but reinforcement / encouragement such as seeing your results on the web must help keep new orienteers interested.

[Domhnull Mor]

I've had mixed experience with this the last two events at which I've been involved with handling the results. The first was a "local" event run by the university staff. They use a specially written Unix programme which sorts out all the times and gives appropriate points (we have a six event mini-league in the autumn). Great if you know how to use it but the manual is non-existant and so I had to resort to the old calculator to get any results out at all by the following evening. It was a further week before I mana´ged to get round all the hurdles and finally get the official results out. Luckily they agreed with what I has calculated.

The second event was a different matter altogether. The Swedish federation (SOFT) got a software package (OLA) developed which works for whatever punching system you use (manual, EMIT or SI). The internet entry system using the klubben-online websites makes this an awful lot easier as you can import all entry data directly. Mind you, manual entering of data is not too difficult either. The beauty of this system is that it is simple to upload results during the event and we had a final list up within an hour of the last finisher coming in despite having to do some corrections due to a few people having EMIT cards that had failed (probably due to the cold). I'm not saying it is brilliant but at least it is a system common to the vast majority of events so that a standardised system is being created.

However, like others have already said, it is access to the website that can be the problem in terms of getting results out fast.

[Ernie_Wise]

I remember (back in the day, put on your rose tinted specs) when results were never put on the web and an importiant piece of equipment in your orienteering inventory was the stamped and addressed envelope. sigh...

[Klebe]

Ahh yes, the good old days By the time the results envelope dropped through the letterbox you had already been to two other events. Then it was trying to explain and remind the kids which event the results referred to, by this time they had moved on and the results were of much less importance to them.

Quick results so that people, especially young kids can see how they have done on the day are vitally important. Especially if we are to 'hook' people into the sport and gain their interest.

[kedge]

I'm sure that the main reason for the slow appearance of results is that many people don't know the password for the BOF site. And possibly others think that you only need to put major event results up on the BOF site. Me - I put them all up, just in case.

And talking about printed results, some folk still want them. We had to print 60 copies for our Bovington event, from 340 pre-entries who sent SAE's, as requested on the BOF Standard Entry Form. There are some people who haven't or don't want internet access and I reckon its unfair to those good people if you take weeks to print the results booklets, having got them on the club website within a couple of hours of the event finishing. After all, the event software produces them perfectly, you've got very little editing to do.

So you need to bully the event officials to get their comments in and get the controller to approve the Badge times quickly.

The problem there is that although the BOF website has the Badge Times calculator, which works from the file you need to produce to submit to the rankings calculator, it hasn't yet been rewritten to work out the ageless junior badge times- you have to do that yourself ( or in the case of some clubs, not bother.) The latest guidelines are up there on the BOF website, so its no big deal.

[swat]

I didn't have a clue what the BOF results password was but it didn't take me long to find it using google. Kind of defeats the object of having a password if it is both easy to find out and also puts off legitimate users.

I've also found it fairly painless to upload (Sport Ident)results to WinSplits and Splitsbrowser - the BOF website suggests you should do both, although a lot of clubs only seem to one or the other. Personally I like to look at both, as they present the data in such different ways.

[Tatty]

Our Club has a policy of not putting up the results from low key Saturday events as some members felt they would discourage those who hadn;t done well! However we were specifically asked to put them up by school children, which included several who'd had poor runs!

[Copepod]

When Cambridge Preservation Society ran its first taster session at its Wandlebury Country Park (13.11.04) using the new yellow and training courses and a string course, CPS asked WAOC if they could publish results on the WAOC website. CPS was able to tell participants where to find their results, which of course meant they had to look at the local OC website and so would also see forthcoming events etc. Most seemed excited at the prospect at seeing their names on a website.

[bofhack]

Submitted to BOF in Autumn 2003 (how many of these have actually happened?):-

A new website for BOF should fulfil all the existing functions but in a much more "joined up" way, bringing in new functions at the same time. Of course there must be a strong news function, and ownership of different parts of the site should be distributed so that those with editing rights can easily update "their" sections from wherever there's an internet connection, and without specialist software too.

But one major function of the site must be to do with *events*. At present, we have an official fixtures list and a separate list for individual events notices. These two should be combined. We also have a section for rankings which works very well, but there are few other services available for events at present.

I suggest a radical re-think is needed about the way we treat the whole issue of computing support for events organisers so that (a) there's a "one stop shop", i.e. the new website, for anything to do with BOF events, and (b) to stop the massive amount of reinvention of wheels which goes on whenever an event (particularly a major one) is staged by a club.

What I have in mind is the following:-

* As many aspects of event organisation as possible are centralised in order to make things easier for both competitors and organisers.

* BOF commissions software to handle entries, start lists, results display, rankings calculations - all as one integrated suite.

* As soon as an event is registered, an event "website" is created within the BOF site; access to the site is given to the organiser who can then input event details such as entry form parameters.

* Competitors should be encouraged to enter and pay for pre-entry events by online means as much as possible. The old postal option should remain for those who have no web access, but entries secretaries should find that the burden on them is much reduced by the majority who enter online (especially if it's cheaper to do so).

* If competitors enter details such as preferred start times, whether or not split times are wanted, etc online, then software could be coded to produce start lists, which could easily seed runners where necessary by linking into the rankings database.

* Start lists could be generated in such a way that vacant slots are left for late entries. Late entries could automatically be charged a higher entry fee if this is the policy of the organisers. [We should be making entries as easy as possible for those who, often through no fault of their own, miss event closing dates. This means that they must be strongly encouraged to make extra maps available for this]

* Organisers would be given the ability to export data about their event (e.g. start lists).

* All results processing should be done via the website: clubs should submit electronic files of results (just as is done at present to the rankings page) to the website which will then fulfil various requirements:-

(a) it will display all results of all BOF events, and then archive them thereafter in perpetuity.

(b) it will perform any relevant calculations on the results, e.g. Badge times, rankings points, which the organisers should then include within any printed versions of the results.

In addition to the above, there should be a search facility built into the site so that information may be quickly located.

If all the above can be achieved, then a massive load will be lifted from the shoulders of all organisers. Maybe we'll find that it'll be easier to find organisers as a result ... It would also vastly increase the importance of the BOF site as it would then become the first port of call for anyone wishing to find information about any aspect of BOF events.

As far as I'm aware, software exists which can fulfil all of the above functions, but it's spread around the country and does not exist as an integrated whole. In addition, we ought not to forget that other Federations may be ahead of us in this area, and we might be able to learn something from them.

For example, the Swiss O-site does nearly all of the above already! Have a look at http://www.solv.ch/index_e.html to see the range of facilities on offer. The main page is in English but all others are in German, but you'll be able to see what's being done nevertheless.

[Guest]

any intrinsic difference between dibbers and EMIT?

None as far as I can see. Just depends on who is doing the results, and the technology available. At our clubs EMIT based event last year the results team had got the results on the web before I had finished collecting controls in from the forest.

On other events done recently with both forms of punching, some have had the results up same day, some have taken several days to manage it.

[distracted]

have to say I agree with Guest (1) about the online entry - would make it so much easier for people like me (OUOC Secretary) to do event entries and not worry about them getting held up in the post/getting them in on time etc. - with an internet entry you know as soon as you send them!

I have often entered people by email as well as post anyway, but it's good to have some feedback before the start lists go up as to whether your entry has been recieved. the good old Royal Mail - don't we just love them

i think the recent discussions have shown how much could be improved with regards to both the way BOF (the governing body) is run, and the way 'O' is run in the UK, how we can learn from what other countries have been doing, successfully or not. But if things are going to change for the better, we need to act on them rather than just sit on our backsides and hope someone else does it for us. Currently, I'm as guilty as most of the rest of us in this respect, and I could put that down to complete lack of free time. But NopeSport is a great place to air ideas and pass them onto the associations/BOF, you can't guarantee someone from BOF will be reading these discussions, so why not use our collective voice. I'm sure the cartel would be up for this, especially if it is for the benefit of the sport that we all love.