Rankings

[DM]

Taken from BOF website

The organiser of a ranking event must submit the results in electronic form in the BOF file format as soon as possible after the event, and no later than 14 days after the event.
If a ranking event fails to meet this condition, the organising club will not be permitted to hold another ranking event until they can guarantee to meet the condition.

Does anyone care about the ranking lists now?

[FatBoy]

Yes I was wondering about when the JK rankings would go up as well. I think if somebody doing a professional results service on behalf of BOF itself doesn't get them up we may as well scrap the whole thing.

[JimB]

Maybe what's needed is a website, a la RouteGadget, where organizers can upload result files, and competitors can view updated rolling rankings. Automate the calculations. (Should be doable if every competitor is identified numerically, and if all needed is in the results file. Not that I'm volunteering. )

[FatBoy]

Err. That's how it works. Only some organisers don't upload the files...

[JimB]

Does event software output the right format, or does the organizer need to format it?

[Simon E]

Does event software output the right format, or does the organizer need to format it?

The required format is pretty simple and well-defined. There is a free conversion tool available for SI output. Full details are on the BOF ranking pages.

Having spent much too long struggling with not quite compliant SI CSV files and Routegadget in the past few weeks perhaps it's time we all moved to the IOF XML format. Or was that another thread...

[DM]

How about highlighting the quickest and the slowest to submit results.

Quickest for us, WCH, Sherbrook, earlier this year, on the club website by the time we got back to Manchester and by around 5.30 pm on the event day, with BOF.

Slowest, well still waiting really, the very enjoyable POTOC/DEE event at Weston Heath/Bury Walls in March.

Anyone else quicker or slower?

[Marco Polo]

Does event software output the right format, or does the organizer need to format it?

So Fatboy doesn't need to say-

Aut-O-Download has an option to export in the BOF rankings list format.
(Never used it though)

[FatBoy]

I'm pretty sure the BOF rankings format is the old IOF format, pre XML. So updating it would perhaps be a good step. Most if not all event management software now produces IOF XML, but as far as I'm aware Aut-O-Download is the only one to produce BOF format directly. I have got a tool to convert OE output to IOF XML and will publish free and unlicensed (and no warranty...) if required.

[DM]

I'm pretty sure the BOF rankings format is the old IOF format, pre XML. So updating it would perhaps be a good step. Most if not all event management software now produces IOF XML, but as far as I'm aware Aut-O-Download is the only one to produce BOF format directly. I have got a tool to convert OE output to IOF XML and will publish free and unlicensed (and no warranty...) if required.

I don't know about the different formats etc. It doesn't matter what the agreed format is if people/clubs don't submit the results at all, I think there is a lack of awareness that for regional events the full results, including those for juniors, should be submitted. I have seen reminders from BO about this, maybe they are not reaching the correct people in the clubs? What can be done to make people aware?? I normally wait a few weeks then send the organiser a reminder which normally does the trick.

[Jon Brooke]

Maybe a new ranking system that ranks clubs according to how fast they submit their results is what's needed?

[IanW]

I'm not convinced that the problem is really one of format. However, I will suggest to Mike Cumpstey (the guy who developed & maintains the system - I don't think he reads nopesport) that it might be worth investigating the IOF XML route. In the longer term, having all results in XML format might even lead us towards a proper event result archiving system! I sometimes dream of a fully integrated fixtures, entry, start time allocation, event details, results, routegadget and ranking system (sad I know) but then reality strikes.

It is correct that the BOF format is based on an old IOF one. At the time it was devised, we were also trying to develop a more general IOF XML format but it stalled until the Swedes put some resource into it. (See the IOF Standard 'history' page).

Is the IOF format described on the IOF site the one curently in use? I ask because it seems to be dated 2002.

Ian

[FatBoy]

Yes I don't think there's been any work on the standard since 2002. As I said in another thread, I think the standard needs some work, but obviously a standard which changes isn't very standard! See some work I've done on my site for some minor extensions for score events etc - as they're optional additions they don't seem to affect other apps, but such work isn't really valid unless it's adopted centrally. For example Condes have done their own extension for score events so now I have to support both extensions!

I agree it's not the format that's the problem, but it may make it marginally less work for clubs to submit it therefore hopefully more will do it.

As for an integrated system - see recent debate on centralised software. I don't think it could happen legally now - too many semi-commerical operations that would be wiped out by an enforced monopoly. On the other hand rather than the BOF results page merely showing submitted links to results, submit the results in XML and show them in situ. This would help clubs whose webmaster isn't the same person as does results - results could be posted more quickly. I'm sure that this sort of application is why we have the IOF standard in the first place. If this were to happen then of course the rankings could be built of this as well and more clubs would submit rankings.

[DM]

Going back to my original comment;

Taken from BOF website

The organiser of a ranking event must submit the results in electronic form in the BOF file format as soon as possible after the event, and no later than 14 days after the event.
If a ranking event fails to meet this condition, the organising club will not be permitted to hold another ranking event until they can guarantee to meet the condition.

What are BO going to do now? Do they write to the clubs/organisations (ie; themselves, ref JK results) who have held Regionals and tell them they are not permitted to hold more ranking events until a guarantee is given? Seems a bit vague to me.

Apart from a few people commenting here there does not seem to be much concern. I wonder if it will be different when Yvette Baker rounds start again and yet again there will be a call for up to date lists of juniors so eligibility for the various classes is clear so that debates about running the wrong course are avoided. These lists are put together from regional results.

[roadrunner]

Going back to my original comment;

Taken from BOF website

The organiser of a ranking event must submit the results in electronic form in the BOF file format as soon as possible after the event, and no later than 14 days after the event.
If a ranking event fails to meet this condition, the organising club will not be permitted to hold another ranking event until they can guarantee to meet the condition.

Does anyone know of a club that's had this action taken against them? I certainly recall many events in the past that have failed to meet the deadline.