Hi,
I need a copy of Fairnilee results urgently so I can check the points for someone who may be or may get promoted this weekend.
If you could email me a copy duncan [ a t ] dcl .co .uk.
Thanks
Duncan
Fairnilee Results - Has any one got a copy
djberriman wrote:Hi,
I need a copy of Fairnilee results urgently so I can check the points for someone who may be or may get promoted this weekend.
If you could email me a copy duncan [ a t ] dcl .co .uk.
Thanks
Duncan
Hi
Apparently the organisers don't have an electronic copy any more as it was done on the SCA laptop which I understand was passed onto the next organiser. Might be worth contacting whoever that was, or the SCA if noone has a copy? Can you get them from the adminstrator (as it would be nice to see them sent through here, too)?
Linda
-
Dave Royle
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 11:02 pm
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
Which I have to say sadly has been left in and it appears will not be removed. Its certainly not the first time its happened and I doubt it will be the last.
I realise every one is a volunteer and we all do our best but I personally find it a poor reflection on our sport when results are incorrect and don't get published for weeks. Mistakes, errors etc are bound to happen on the day but surely it is the responsibility of the governing body to ensure that they are corrected.
Quite how you are supposed to decide whether a paddler is promoted when there are no official, correct results published I am not sure. It wastes a lot of everyones time, has knock on affects on other paddlers and disappoints paddlers directly affected. It can't help bib officers etc do their job either.
As I say I realise we (yes me too - I organise & help at slaloms) are volunteers but I wish we had an official web site with official results which have been checked and accepted by the ranking officers with any mistakes removed in a timely manner - I know this is difficult as there is often only a week between events.
It would also surely help organisers (like myself) if any mistakes are fed back with an explanation of where we went wrong so we can get it right next time as all we have to work from is a rule book as the sport does not provide any 'certified' race software.
I guess this arises because the sport didn't used to have in season promotions (as I understand it - before my time) and the rules and systems etc used have not developed to embrace the new situation whereby the speed, visibility and accuracy of results are more important.
Its a horrible situation having to tell a paddler they need to race this weekend because they are 'probably' not promoted. Overall I guess its not the end of the world, they will race, probably do enough and probably get promoted.
I realise every one is a volunteer and we all do our best but I personally find it a poor reflection on our sport when results are incorrect and don't get published for weeks. Mistakes, errors etc are bound to happen on the day but surely it is the responsibility of the governing body to ensure that they are corrected.
Quite how you are supposed to decide whether a paddler is promoted when there are no official, correct results published I am not sure. It wastes a lot of everyones time, has knock on affects on other paddlers and disappoints paddlers directly affected. It can't help bib officers etc do their job either.
As I say I realise we (yes me too - I organise & help at slaloms) are volunteers but I wish we had an official web site with official results which have been checked and accepted by the ranking officers with any mistakes removed in a timely manner - I know this is difficult as there is often only a week between events.
It would also surely help organisers (like myself) if any mistakes are fed back with an explanation of where we went wrong so we can get it right next time as all we have to work from is a rule book as the sport does not provide any 'certified' race software.
I guess this arises because the sport didn't used to have in season promotions (as I understand it - before my time) and the rules and systems etc used have not developed to embrace the new situation whereby the speed, visibility and accuracy of results are more important.
Its a horrible situation having to tell a paddler they need to race this weekend because they are 'probably' not promoted. Overall I guess its not the end of the world, they will race, probably do enough and probably get promoted.
Hi Duncan,
Some sports operate in this way with electronic results being posted and verified within a timely manner, but I doubt it would be cheap to implement and you would probably need to recruit a whole new set of ranking compilers to run it.
It just needs someone to look in to all the options available and cost them up for consideration at a future ACM.
Are you volunteering? Thought not.
And that is why we are where we are and why we will probably remain there for some years to come. Change only happens when there are enough people dissatisfied with the current system. As it happens, the system we have works as a rule with only minor blips, so I doubt a more costly solution would get seroius backing at an ACM in the current climate.
Mark
Some sports operate in this way with electronic results being posted and verified within a timely manner, but I doubt it would be cheap to implement and you would probably need to recruit a whole new set of ranking compilers to run it.
It just needs someone to look in to all the options available and cost them up for consideration at a future ACM.
Are you volunteering? Thought not.
And that is why we are where we are and why we will probably remain there for some years to come. Change only happens when there are enough people dissatisfied with the current system. As it happens, the system we have works as a rule with only minor blips, so I doubt a more costly solution would get seroius backing at an ACM in the current climate.
Mark
The above is the personal opinion of Mark Shaw and does not reflect the views of either the BCU or England Slalom Committees.
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
As I mentioned in my post I do volunteer a lot of my time running events or helping others to run events as well as coaching slalom every week and many weekends. I respect the time and effort all organisers put in as well as the bib officers, committee, ranking officers etc. We all do our best to run the sport. I know its not perfect or simple and the stress on the day can be extreme at times.
I was just making a point and it seems it is not possible to make one without people taking it personally which is a very sad state of affairs.
As for your mention of my volunteering if something was seriously going to be done then I would be open to considering helping out in any review so please don't put words in my mouth when I have not been asked.
But there is absolutely no point spending time (and money) looking at the options available for a future ACM to consider without guidelines as to what is required. It would require some ideas, guidelines and idea of budget from the committee, bib offices, ranking officers, slalom organisers etc otherwise the solutions that were suggested may be unworkable, too costly and simply be rejected at the ACM.
I don't actually think there is a lot wrong with what we do it is simply we have an unofficial web site (which states all over it that the results should not be taken as gospel) and no way of obtaining an official set of results. Sometimes results take a while to appear but events are often only 6 days apart. Thus confusion is caused and paddlers do not know where they stand other than working out the points for themselves. When mistakes happen (as they sometimes do in results) then it is unclear what points are applied and this can make the difference between a paddler being promoted or not.
Many paddlers struggle to fund their paddling so when asked whether they are promoted and do they need to paddle the next race you can see how it looks when all I can answer is probably not.
The problem is more accute towards the end of the season when paddlers are running out of events and can not simply wait for the results to appear.
I hope you now understand my points and can reflect on how we might improve the situation.
I was just making a point and it seems it is not possible to make one without people taking it personally which is a very sad state of affairs.
As for your mention of my volunteering if something was seriously going to be done then I would be open to considering helping out in any review so please don't put words in my mouth when I have not been asked.
But there is absolutely no point spending time (and money) looking at the options available for a future ACM to consider without guidelines as to what is required. It would require some ideas, guidelines and idea of budget from the committee, bib offices, ranking officers, slalom organisers etc otherwise the solutions that were suggested may be unworkable, too costly and simply be rejected at the ACM.
I don't actually think there is a lot wrong with what we do it is simply we have an unofficial web site (which states all over it that the results should not be taken as gospel) and no way of obtaining an official set of results. Sometimes results take a while to appear but events are often only 6 days apart. Thus confusion is caused and paddlers do not know where they stand other than working out the points for themselves. When mistakes happen (as they sometimes do in results) then it is unclear what points are applied and this can make the difference between a paddler being promoted or not.
Many paddlers struggle to fund their paddling so when asked whether they are promoted and do they need to paddle the next race you can see how it looks when all I can answer is probably not.
The problem is more accute towards the end of the season when paddlers are running out of events and can not simply wait for the results to appear.
I hope you now understand my points and can reflect on how we might improve the situation.
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
As an example of previous work I have done for a sport which was based on a slow and laborious black box paper based system you might like to look at the following.
http://www.humbersquash.org/teamrank.asp (you can move around using the nav found under sub navigation).
This is a fully automated ranking system for one of the best squash leagues in the country. All points and rankings are automatically calculated. Winning teams put their results in via a simple web page (usually within 24 hours), results are then emailed to the losing team automatically (or they can be put in by the administrator). An administrator can update/amend information as required. As well as working out team and player points/rankings the system shows fixtures and results and every player can see how their ranking is calculated as can any team. Points/rankings are calculated daily so any new results and any amendments are quickly reflected in the rankings/points. The whole thing is completely open to scrutiny by any individual or team.
Duncan
http://www.humbersquash.org/teamrank.asp (you can move around using the nav found under sub navigation).
This is a fully automated ranking system for one of the best squash leagues in the country. All points and rankings are automatically calculated. Winning teams put their results in via a simple web page (usually within 24 hours), results are then emailed to the losing team automatically (or they can be put in by the administrator). An administrator can update/amend information as required. As well as working out team and player points/rankings the system shows fixtures and results and every player can see how their ranking is calculated as can any team. Points/rankings are calculated daily so any new results and any amendments are quickly reflected in the rankings/points. The whole thing is completely open to scrutiny by any individual or team.
Duncan
-
Fairweather Paddler
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:14 am
- Location: Yorkshire
Mark Shaw wrote:Are you volunteering? Thought not.
And this attitude is exactly why people don't volunteer and those that do feel undervalued.
Instead of making assumptions, ask people to volunteer for specific tasks giving them a guideline of what is expected and how much commitment is involved. You may be surprised at the response you get. Alternatively carry on burying your head in the sand and nothing will change.
OK - not wanting to undervalue the volunteers we have out there - what triggers do we need to put in place to enact change to the current ranking system?
The main gripe appears to be the lack of officially scrutinised electronic results being made available on a web site for all to view & check within 4 days of the completion of an event.
For this to occur, the checking of the cards against the official results needs to happen as soon as the event has finished by an official 3rd party (not the organiser) as there is too much delay in waiting for them to be posted to the ranking compiler. It also imposes a condition on the organiser that they have the means to produce an electronic copy of the results (no more paper copies that are scanned and posted!!) and the ability to upload them to a web site.
Maybe the checking of the results is one extra task to burden the poor Chair of the Jury with? Obviously at Prem/Div 1 events this task is undertaken by the Timing Team which helps enormously, but I think the focus of this post is Div 2/3/4 events.
As for uploading the results to a web site, I'm certain Nick Penfold wouldn't have any objections in hosting the data if someone provided the code to enable it to happen, assuming of course that his service provider supports whatever mechanism is used. It may even be that we have to provide some limited funds from GB/England to enable this to happen. The England pot is from levies taken from slalom entries at England races so I've no objection to the money being used in this way.
Any volunteers for the results upload bit? Nick - would you be OK with hosting this?
Does anyone have any other ideas for how we could improve on the above, e.g. alternative to using jury chair, etc?
Finally, who's going to propose this as a rule change at this years ACM? You have until 29th October I believe to submit it. I'll propose it if there is a seconder?
Mark
The main gripe appears to be the lack of officially scrutinised electronic results being made available on a web site for all to view & check within 4 days of the completion of an event.
For this to occur, the checking of the cards against the official results needs to happen as soon as the event has finished by an official 3rd party (not the organiser) as there is too much delay in waiting for them to be posted to the ranking compiler. It also imposes a condition on the organiser that they have the means to produce an electronic copy of the results (no more paper copies that are scanned and posted!!) and the ability to upload them to a web site.
Maybe the checking of the results is one extra task to burden the poor Chair of the Jury with? Obviously at Prem/Div 1 events this task is undertaken by the Timing Team which helps enormously, but I think the focus of this post is Div 2/3/4 events.
As for uploading the results to a web site, I'm certain Nick Penfold wouldn't have any objections in hosting the data if someone provided the code to enable it to happen, assuming of course that his service provider supports whatever mechanism is used. It may even be that we have to provide some limited funds from GB/England to enable this to happen. The England pot is from levies taken from slalom entries at England races so I've no objection to the money being used in this way.
Any volunteers for the results upload bit? Nick - would you be OK with hosting this?
Does anyone have any other ideas for how we could improve on the above, e.g. alternative to using jury chair, etc?
Finally, who's going to propose this as a rule change at this years ACM? You have until 29th October I believe to submit it. I'll propose it if there is a seconder?
Mark
The above is the personal opinion of Mark Shaw and does not reflect the views of either the BCU or England Slalom Committees.
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
I'm not sure we can get something done for this ACM but perhaps we can take some steps to facilitate future improvements.
One thing I have learnt over my years in IT is to take small steps at a time and not jump in with both feet. The squash system was implemented over 3 years. This allowed the players/teams/organisers etc to get used to it and see the benefits. There were one or two complaints at first about having to have internet access etc - only to be expected. Each year we automated more and switched from the administrator putting all results in to the end result of each team putting their own in. Once players saw the benefits they bought in to the process.
The first issue is that there are now a number of different systems being used to run events and produce results. I'm aware of slasoft and around 5 other home brew systems (well done to all those who have taken the task up) being used. I'm not sure which produce correct points automatically. I know some manual working out is done in some cases. It would be much better if we had a proven system which produced results to the latest rules and were known to be correct and updated each year when the rules changed. So thats the first problem I am aware of. Not sure how we 'solve' that one.
I guess my suggestion would be to produce a set of dummy 'events' that cover all situations which can be input into any system used and then checked against a validated set of results. This would ensure any system used is correct as of the latest rule set.
If the systems producing the results are not proven then that makes the task much bigger as well as checking the cards (something I was unaware of - useful to know) then you will have to manually check the points - something to be avoided if we can.
An alternative/additional solution is for the code on the upload system to validate the points are correct. That should be possible. Although its complicated when points are not quorate and relate to K1M and the like. As long as the results are presented in the correct way it should be able to validate them and the actual system used to create them should not matter so much. Again this system would need validating in a similar manner.
As well as validating points you should really validate the paddlers, that requires an up to date and correct list of paddlers for each division/class. It will have to cope with promotions/demotions, paddlers without bibs etc. Once you have an automated system I guess that task will be easier but there may still be exceptions to deal with.
There are also issues were 'odd' things happen at events which can not be picked up in this manner but usually are brought to the attention of ranking officers after the event.
As a starting point I would suggest we put forward a rule change that results are submitted in an electronic format. This would be a step forward and would probably help Nick with his current system and provide foundation for a future solution.
A csv file would seem sensible. Is there any mileage in defining what the format/column layout should be?
I'd be prepared to look at the data to see what issues we may have and what problems we need to address before we take any next steps. I'd guess the existing bib offices, ranking officers and Nick should have a wealth of experience which might help us here. Their input would be invaluable.
Your idea of checking cards 'locally' seems a good idea, I once got one back in the post, must have fallen out of a parcel, post office didn't even charge me! I guess it doesn't have to be done on the day but within a reasonable time frame. Any issues then need (I guess) to be communicated to the organiser before the release of the official results but perhaps you have a better idea on how that process should work. Anyone any idea how long this normally takes and how often errors are found?
Has anyone else any input on this - other issues we have missed, ideas to contribute or facts and figures to help us on our way?
Duncan
One thing I have learnt over my years in IT is to take small steps at a time and not jump in with both feet. The squash system was implemented over 3 years. This allowed the players/teams/organisers etc to get used to it and see the benefits. There were one or two complaints at first about having to have internet access etc - only to be expected. Each year we automated more and switched from the administrator putting all results in to the end result of each team putting their own in. Once players saw the benefits they bought in to the process.
The first issue is that there are now a number of different systems being used to run events and produce results. I'm aware of slasoft and around 5 other home brew systems (well done to all those who have taken the task up) being used. I'm not sure which produce correct points automatically. I know some manual working out is done in some cases. It would be much better if we had a proven system which produced results to the latest rules and were known to be correct and updated each year when the rules changed. So thats the first problem I am aware of. Not sure how we 'solve' that one.
I guess my suggestion would be to produce a set of dummy 'events' that cover all situations which can be input into any system used and then checked against a validated set of results. This would ensure any system used is correct as of the latest rule set.
If the systems producing the results are not proven then that makes the task much bigger as well as checking the cards (something I was unaware of - useful to know) then you will have to manually check the points - something to be avoided if we can.
An alternative/additional solution is for the code on the upload system to validate the points are correct. That should be possible. Although its complicated when points are not quorate and relate to K1M and the like. As long as the results are presented in the correct way it should be able to validate them and the actual system used to create them should not matter so much. Again this system would need validating in a similar manner.
As well as validating points you should really validate the paddlers, that requires an up to date and correct list of paddlers for each division/class. It will have to cope with promotions/demotions, paddlers without bibs etc. Once you have an automated system I guess that task will be easier but there may still be exceptions to deal with.
There are also issues were 'odd' things happen at events which can not be picked up in this manner but usually are brought to the attention of ranking officers after the event.
As a starting point I would suggest we put forward a rule change that results are submitted in an electronic format. This would be a step forward and would probably help Nick with his current system and provide foundation for a future solution.
A csv file would seem sensible. Is there any mileage in defining what the format/column layout should be?
I'd be prepared to look at the data to see what issues we may have and what problems we need to address before we take any next steps. I'd guess the existing bib offices, ranking officers and Nick should have a wealth of experience which might help us here. Their input would be invaluable.
Your idea of checking cards 'locally' seems a good idea, I once got one back in the post, must have fallen out of a parcel, post office didn't even charge me! I guess it doesn't have to be done on the day but within a reasonable time frame. Any issues then need (I guess) to be communicated to the organiser before the release of the official results but perhaps you have a better idea on how that process should work. Anyone any idea how long this normally takes and how often errors are found?
Has anyone else any input on this - other issues we have missed, ideas to contribute or facts and figures to help us on our way?
Duncan
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
I am probably certifiable but here goes.
I think the time has come to move this forward as the paddlers do want to know where they stand with races often only a week apart during the season and I don't have enough fingers to count the times I have explained the ranking and promotion system to parents and indeed have caught them potentially competing in lower divisions after they had been promoted but did not realise!
I track all the Scottish juniors in Div 2 and above with a home grown system and would be happy to share the code that works out all their points and their targets as they get close to promotion.
The points systems are complex but can usually be coded - although this looks as though it will need to change again for C1W for next year! The Pan Celtic points system is the worst but even this is possible. Once we have the codes right it will only be a question of testing them in live use on the riverbank to identify an correct bugs.
I would be happy to (well maybe that is a bit strong) 'volunteer' to contribute from North of the Border.
We probably do need a bib list feed as the little dears don't even get these right on their entry cards! Maybe I am jaundiced by doing Tully at Easter and by now they have worked out the number they have on their front and back. I rip the one off Nicks site to validate against.
I think it would be reasonable to request electronic submission as a requirement for next season - I have now also got my stab vest on!
Peter
I think the time has come to move this forward as the paddlers do want to know where they stand with races often only a week apart during the season and I don't have enough fingers to count the times I have explained the ranking and promotion system to parents and indeed have caught them potentially competing in lower divisions after they had been promoted but did not realise!
I track all the Scottish juniors in Div 2 and above with a home grown system and would be happy to share the code that works out all their points and their targets as they get close to promotion.
The points systems are complex but can usually be coded - although this looks as though it will need to change again for C1W for next year! The Pan Celtic points system is the worst but even this is possible. Once we have the codes right it will only be a question of testing them in live use on the riverbank to identify an correct bugs.
I would be happy to (well maybe that is a bit strong) 'volunteer' to contribute from North of the Border.
We probably do need a bib list feed as the little dears don't even get these right on their entry cards! Maybe I am jaundiced by doing Tully at Easter and by now they have worked out the number they have on their front and back. I rip the one off Nicks site to validate against.
I think it would be reasonable to request electronic submission as a requirement for next season - I have now also got my stab vest on!
Peter
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
I'm thinking I could write some code to at least validate results.
Perhaps Nick already has this I'm not sure as to the complexity of what he does currently. It can't be easy with all the different formats and some paper results. This is were we 'outsiders' need to understand what is already in place - there is no point undoing others good work and reinventing the wheel.
As Peter states it is not impossible to automate as at the end of the day there are defined rules however complex they are.
So if we have an electronic format (preferably defined) but as a basis at least calling the important columns the same thing (then the validation program can 'learn') I could develop an email or web based service which accepts a set of results and then seeks to validate them, providing an explanation where it thinks they are wrong and warn of possible issues.
Its not the end of the world to have to tweak an input file but its better if the data is presented correctly in the first place as then the service can be automated/instant rather than relying on someone to run it.
If every set of results is thrown at it next year as a trial it should prove useful as an exercise in itself (helping to validate the validation) as well as validating the software being used out on the river bank (helping to improve it), the results being produced and understand issues that typically arise.
I do something similar for loading data into the squash system at the start of the year, validating the input and producing an exception report as the initial fixture list, clubs, teams, players and starting points are done in excel.
Perhaps Nick already has this I'm not sure as to the complexity of what he does currently. It can't be easy with all the different formats and some paper results. This is were we 'outsiders' need to understand what is already in place - there is no point undoing others good work and reinventing the wheel.
As Peter states it is not impossible to automate as at the end of the day there are defined rules however complex they are.
So if we have an electronic format (preferably defined) but as a basis at least calling the important columns the same thing (then the validation program can 'learn') I could develop an email or web based service which accepts a set of results and then seeks to validate them, providing an explanation where it thinks they are wrong and warn of possible issues.
Its not the end of the world to have to tweak an input file but its better if the data is presented correctly in the first place as then the service can be automated/instant rather than relying on someone to run it.
If every set of results is thrown at it next year as a trial it should prove useful as an exercise in itself (helping to validate the validation) as well as validating the software being used out on the river bank (helping to improve it), the results being produced and understand issues that typically arise.
I do something similar for loading data into the squash system at the start of the year, validating the input and producing an exception report as the initial fixture list, clubs, teams, players and starting points are done in excel.
-
Nick Penfold
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:21 pm
Hummm.
As to whether the website could host something, probably yes, if PHP, MySQL etc.
But I suggest you think in terms of starting with Prem and Div 1 races and working down. In Div 2 to some extent, and in Div 3 a lot, paddlers with no bibs, wrong bib numbers etc are legion. Question 1, from an analyst, is likely to be "what will be the unique key identifying each competitor?" and it's not easy.
The other issue is the upload, starting from a strange mishmash of systems.
For info, the current "system" I use is plain Excel spreadsheets, maintained by hand. Pretty tedious.
As to whether the website could host something, probably yes, if PHP, MySQL etc.
But I suggest you think in terms of starting with Prem and Div 1 races and working down. In Div 2 to some extent, and in Div 3 a lot, paddlers with no bibs, wrong bib numbers etc are legion. Question 1, from an analyst, is likely to be "what will be the unique key identifying each competitor?" and it's not easy.
The other issue is the upload, starting from a strange mishmash of systems.
For info, the current "system" I use is plain Excel spreadsheets, maintained by hand. Pretty tedious.
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm