Bindi 2,
Cya? Put a book in the back of your pants? Charter a yacht in Australia? Etc
Revive the Rankings?
Moderator: Mod
-
Bindi2
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:59 pm
AlanF wrote:Right-O!
Firstly, because Geoff's no 1 priority is with ET design and manufacture, we decided that his time will be better spent on that than on this. I'm sure you'll all agree. Its been made easier by the fact that I've been able to force MS Excel into doing the rankings AND derivations. It really should be done on a database as Geoff was doing on the NRAA website, but with a few workarounds, it seems to do the trick, and only takes a few minutes to enter all required info for a Queens event.
The hardest part was and still is getting the results. All States and Territories are now very good at publishing results on their websites except for one : WARA! The 2011 results show badge winners only, the 2012 results aren't there at all, and for 2013 the badge winners are finally there after a fortnight, but still no full results. Can someone from WA (Brad, Quick?) please make some enquiries about why the results are not being published? I have contacted WARA (politely) twice, including the Chairperson, but haven't had a reply. Until we get this information, I'm afraid the rankings will not show all points for WA competitions.
Below are links to the rankings and derivations for F-Open, F-Std, and F/TR.Please have a look at these and if you see errors, let me know on here or by PM. When any bugs have been ironed out, I'll give them a permanent place on the main ozfclass.com website, along with explanations of the calculation method. I still think we could fine tune these calculations to better meet the intended purpose of the rankings. For example you may notice in the derivations tables there is a column for "Field Size". This isn't used currently, but it could be. I'll raise the subject of possible tweaking after any bugs are ironed out.
- F-Open is done the same as before
- F-Std is also the same except it now uses overall placings with F-Std B included.
- F/TR uses the same calculation parameters as F-Open.
Alan
I see an error..... I am not even on the list
.AlanF wrote:
I'm not used to being down the order, so need to make a few more appearances myself - those Braund brothers can't be allowed to remain that high.
Alan
This is one big thing the rankings do. Although I accept not all shooters will follow this, a group of the top level ones attend more Queens to maintain a decent rank (or shoot for the top). This helps keep the competition level high at the pointy end of the stick. It is what kept James Corbett going to all those Queens all those years and has taken him (and all those chasing him) to another level!
EDIT - actually I will change this a bit to include not only the pointy end but others attend Queens to start building a ranking too. I know several that are starting to go to more big level competitions. They are excellent shots at club (and OPM) level and are now trying their arm at Queens. This is very important for Queens attendance and I think the NRAA and state bodies should consider this carefully. An up to date, well maintained ranking system will help attendance!
Last edited by DaveMc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
AlanF
- Posts: 7532
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
- Has thanked: 229 times
- Been thanked: 936 times
Jason,
Despite your impressive Raton performance, there appears to be only one event where you've earned ranking points, being the 2012 National Queens where your F-Std B win put you in 8th place out of 28 in F-Std.
If you use the link below, go into F-Std derivations and it is listed under your name there. The F-Std rankings page only shows the top half of the list, so doesn't show yours.
CLICK HERE FOR RANKINGS PAGE
Like all of us, you're just going to have to go to some Queens to earn some points!
Alan
Despite your impressive Raton performance, there appears to be only one event where you've earned ranking points, being the 2012 National Queens where your F-Std B win put you in 8th place out of 28 in F-Std.
If you use the link below, go into F-Std derivations and it is listed under your name there. The F-Std rankings page only shows the top half of the list, so doesn't show yours.
CLICK HERE FOR RANKINGS PAGE
Like all of us, you're just going to have to go to some Queens to earn some points!
Alan
-
bartman007
- Posts: 921
- Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:06 pm
- Location: Gippsland
- Has thanked: 97 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Significance of years past
Alan,
Great job on the Rankings for our various classes!
In regard to the significance of points awarded, I notice that you do age the results which is a good idea. However, I wonder if it is still relevant to have results as old as 2010 and 2011 on the list?
If you want to show who is at the top of our game, then maybe 12 to 24 months may be more appropriate given the limited number of Queens and Leadup events during that period.
This will also make it easier for you to manage in that you don't have to chase up old data. The good news is, that most state RA's have a decent record keeping system in place now, and it will only get better with the NRAA's system when it comes online.
Great job on the Rankings for our various classes!
In regard to the significance of points awarded, I notice that you do age the results which is a good idea. However, I wonder if it is still relevant to have results as old as 2010 and 2011 on the list?
If you want to show who is at the top of our game, then maybe 12 to 24 months may be more appropriate given the limited number of Queens and Leadup events during that period.
This will also make it easier for you to manage in that you don't have to chase up old data. The good news is, that most state RA's have a decent record keeping system in place now, and it will only get better with the NRAA's system when it comes online.
-
higginsdj
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:34 pm
- Location: Canberra
- Contact:
I take it this ranking system is still continually evolving as some shooters only have a small number of 'current' results included on the derivations page. ie Dennis Formiatti is missing the 2013 Vic Queens, 2013 Tas Queens, 2103 Tas Leadup, 2013 QLD Leadup and 2013 ACT Queens results!
Cheers
David
Cheers
David
-
gone
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:17 am
higginsdj wrote:I take it this ranking system is still continually evolving as some shooters only have a small number of 'current' results included on the derivations page. ie Dennis Formiatti is missing the 2013 Vic Queens, 2013 Tas Queens, 2103 Tas Leadup, 2013 QLD Leadup and 2013 ACT Queens results!
Cheers
David
Hi David,
I will leave it up to Alan, but just briefly looking at the 2013 ACT Queens Dennis finished 2nd in B grade (even with taking B including as Alan has to date) he would be well past 19th and therefore I would doubt gain points. towards a ranking for that result. This is the only one i have looked at maybe you should work out what points you think he deserves and put it forward.
Daryl.
-
higginsdj
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:34 pm
- Location: Canberra
- Contact:
-
RAVEN
- Posts: 1979
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:37 pm
- Location: Adelaide South Australia (CTV)
- Has thanked: 97 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
Jason you will just have to try harder
Alan you are doing great work
I think the last 3 years of results should be taken into account
As the eastern states can attend multiple Queen's relatively easily compared to central, western and NQ competitors.
Brisbainites can attend 2 queens per year stepping out their back door
There should be reward for attendance.
And most will attend 1 annually and possibly a second every couple of years its very difficult to achieve a level playing field but you’re very close IMO
International competition is a whole different kettle of fish and just being part of these events is enough recognition.
If you really haven’t anything to do
you could list the world ranking as a separate scoreboard (just the aussies)
RB
Alan you are doing great work
I think the last 3 years of results should be taken into account
As the eastern states can attend multiple Queen's relatively easily compared to central, western and NQ competitors.
Brisbainites can attend 2 queens per year stepping out their back door
There should be reward for attendance.
And most will attend 1 annually and possibly a second every couple of years its very difficult to achieve a level playing field but you’re very close IMO
International competition is a whole different kettle of fish and just being part of these events is enough recognition.
If you really haven’t anything to do
you could list the world ranking as a separate scoreboard (just the aussies)
RB
AlanF wrote:Jason,
Despite your impressive Raton performance, there appears to be only one event where you've earned ranking points, being the 2012 National Queens where your F-Std B win put you in 8th place out of 28 in F-Std.
If you use the link below, go into F-Std derivations and it is listed under your name there. The F-Std rankings page only shows the top half of the list, so doesn't show yours.
CLICK HERE FOR RANKINGS PAGE
Like all of us, you're just going to have to go to some Queens to earn some points!
Alan
Its ok, there was a bit of sarcasm, whilst I understand what your trying to achieve, I think its validity is questionable and I liken it to the participation medal movement. You cant compare one shooter who attends X amount of events to another who attends Y and expect to get an accurate indication of their ability. Had you have gone for a % based system that relates your average against others I think it would have solid merit, but I guess the maths in that would be a tad more complex.
In the current form, there are many brilliant shooters who are likely never to make an appearance on the rankings, and I doubt they will be overly disappointed.
I just hope it does not become a tool used as part of selection criteria for future teams within the sport.
I guess the old saying quality not quantity comes to mind.
-
gone
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:17 am
alternatives
Hi Alan,
Sorry for sounding like I am second guessing your every move, but I have looked at your points and increase for field size and have an alternative for consideration. Please see attached spreadsheet.
• Including the B grade,
For the following reasons B grade results should not take ranking points from A grade competitors.
The rankings (in the past) have always been the top 100 shooters in the country of each area. This was how Bob put it to me after the Queensland Queens, "if you want ranking points nominate “A” and earn them". Until recently I was considered "a splash in the pan". (Might still be)
As B grade is only new (last 3 years) and I am concerned that some shooters might be sandbagging to remain in B grade and might appear to be becoming B grade experts.
Reduces your work load of having to redo every result of every event and republish them as a combined number (total shooters and A/B grade combined finishing position).
Prevent the problem of if a queens is shoot with only a few A graders and a high number of B graders (eg Tasmania this year) in this situation and a high number of "shooters" does not necessarily equate to a "higher level of competition". No offence to anybody attending or competing just an observation.
Weighting, making if fairer for shooters only attending 1 queens a year and points to more positions;
As I have said previously and again in my personal opinion any F Standard system that does not (currently) find Bob Pederson at the top of it must need some refining.
The previous rankings (NRAA system) 90 points (=winning 1 queens and lead up) would find you well up in the rankings. Therefore winning 1 queens and lead up once a year will find you well up in the rankings in fact if they deteriorate over 3 years and only 5 count they would not all be included and therefore no disadvantage a shooter only attending one queens a year (in theory). As opposed to giving more points to shooters coming 22nd?
As to giving points all the way down past the top 10 going to 15 would should pick up most shooters over time. We have always seemed to have at least 100 on the list previously? Maybe I am wrong here I have not conducted a study. If fact giving points further down the line would in effect disadvantage since queens shooters.
As has been illustrated via post recently if you are further down the list shooters might not want it known or published.
The potential problem of if a queens is shoot with only a few A graders and a high number of B graders (eg Tasmania this year) in this situation and a high number of "shooters" does not necessarily equate to a "higher level of competition". Although there was only 41 shooters in NQ Queens last year (but also the Australian States F class competition on directly post the Queens) I would have thought the competition was tougher there than some other events even with larger fields? Maybe an alternative weighting system should use the number of “top 100” ranked shooters at the event rather than physical numbers?
As to the scenario where someone only attends one queens a year and it is a small one and does not come in the top 10/15 etc. Well I have to say sorry but maybe your goal is not to make the top one hundred list, they shoot for other reasons and thank you for you make it great competition and grow the sport. My goal 2 years ago was to make the list and it has been a task.
The level of maintenance required to keep the records accurate appears to be more arduous then required, for little to no gain. I understand that this is your commitment not mine, but as the last system (NRAA system on their website) appeared to suffer from lack of updating (no offence to the web master he could only use the information provided (or not provided)) and as it would appear your efforts (regarding with the WA results), maintaining the records accurately seems to be a hard enough exercise without making it more complicated.
Points for the Lead up event
As to the lead up event -20 off the same table makes things more standard.
Believe me I appreciate the time and effort you have put into this, and my not have made my reasoning clear in the past (and still might not have for that matter), but in my opinion the last effort you had where I dropped several places (to me) more clearly &/or accurately reflected shooters (as I would have thought them rated), I understand my decease (regardless of my other efforts) as I have not competed if a single F standard Queens this year. If you want to maintain your position of this list it needs feeding!
Jason, the TR rankings are used to select the Commonwealth Games team, as F class is not currently in the Commonwealth Games its use is? This of course is disappointing considering the Games are here in 2018.
Daryl.
Sorry for sounding like I am second guessing your every move, but I have looked at your points and increase for field size and have an alternative for consideration. Please see attached spreadsheet.
• Including the B grade,
For the following reasons B grade results should not take ranking points from A grade competitors.
The rankings (in the past) have always been the top 100 shooters in the country of each area. This was how Bob put it to me after the Queensland Queens, "if you want ranking points nominate “A” and earn them". Until recently I was considered "a splash in the pan". (Might still be)
As B grade is only new (last 3 years) and I am concerned that some shooters might be sandbagging to remain in B grade and might appear to be becoming B grade experts.
Reduces your work load of having to redo every result of every event and republish them as a combined number (total shooters and A/B grade combined finishing position).
Prevent the problem of if a queens is shoot with only a few A graders and a high number of B graders (eg Tasmania this year) in this situation and a high number of "shooters" does not necessarily equate to a "higher level of competition". No offence to anybody attending or competing just an observation.
Weighting, making if fairer for shooters only attending 1 queens a year and points to more positions;
As I have said previously and again in my personal opinion any F Standard system that does not (currently) find Bob Pederson at the top of it must need some refining.
The previous rankings (NRAA system) 90 points (=winning 1 queens and lead up) would find you well up in the rankings. Therefore winning 1 queens and lead up once a year will find you well up in the rankings in fact if they deteriorate over 3 years and only 5 count they would not all be included and therefore no disadvantage a shooter only attending one queens a year (in theory). As opposed to giving more points to shooters coming 22nd?
As to giving points all the way down past the top 10 going to 15 would should pick up most shooters over time. We have always seemed to have at least 100 on the list previously? Maybe I am wrong here I have not conducted a study. If fact giving points further down the line would in effect disadvantage since queens shooters.
As has been illustrated via post recently if you are further down the list shooters might not want it known or published.
The potential problem of if a queens is shoot with only a few A graders and a high number of B graders (eg Tasmania this year) in this situation and a high number of "shooters" does not necessarily equate to a "higher level of competition". Although there was only 41 shooters in NQ Queens last year (but also the Australian States F class competition on directly post the Queens) I would have thought the competition was tougher there than some other events even with larger fields? Maybe an alternative weighting system should use the number of “top 100” ranked shooters at the event rather than physical numbers?
As to the scenario where someone only attends one queens a year and it is a small one and does not come in the top 10/15 etc. Well I have to say sorry but maybe your goal is not to make the top one hundred list, they shoot for other reasons and thank you for you make it great competition and grow the sport. My goal 2 years ago was to make the list and it has been a task.
The level of maintenance required to keep the records accurate appears to be more arduous then required, for little to no gain. I understand that this is your commitment not mine, but as the last system (NRAA system on their website) appeared to suffer from lack of updating (no offence to the web master he could only use the information provided (or not provided)) and as it would appear your efforts (regarding with the WA results), maintaining the records accurately seems to be a hard enough exercise without making it more complicated.
Points for the Lead up event
As to the lead up event -20 off the same table makes things more standard.
Believe me I appreciate the time and effort you have put into this, and my not have made my reasoning clear in the past (and still might not have for that matter), but in my opinion the last effort you had where I dropped several places (to me) more clearly &/or accurately reflected shooters (as I would have thought them rated), I understand my decease (regardless of my other efforts) as I have not competed if a single F standard Queens this year. If you want to maintain your position of this list it needs feeding!
Jason, the TR rankings are used to select the Commonwealth Games team, as F class is not currently in the Commonwealth Games its use is? This of course is disappointing considering the Games are here in 2018.
Daryl.
-
AlanF
- Posts: 7532
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
- Has thanked: 229 times
- Been thanked: 936 times
Thanks Daryl,
I should probably have said this earlier, but would like if possible to leave this new system as is for a trial period, say till the end of next year. All the changes were done with good intentions, and unless there is a general uproar, I don't intend to change any of them back now. Towards the end of next year, I'll invite comments, and hopefully will get plenty, to suggest further changes (or reversals). For now I only want to correct errors in the data, and there have been a few reported by PM and e-mail (thanks to those who have done this).
After the review is done, if we come up with changes to the calculations, then they can be applied to all the existing data quite easily, so the change will be very quick.
One thing I am surprised that you suggested is to exclude lower grades. I personally will never support that. While things have been improving lately (e.g. ACT Rifle Club
) , F-Class has in the past been excluded from many TR only competitions and award categories so we should know how it feels to be excluded. I should add that its not a huge amount of extra work to merge A and B Grade scores.
Thanks for your enthusiasm - I'd appreciate it if you could wait until the proposed review and your ideas will be put in the mix.
See you at a shoot soon!
Alan
I should probably have said this earlier, but would like if possible to leave this new system as is for a trial period, say till the end of next year. All the changes were done with good intentions, and unless there is a general uproar, I don't intend to change any of them back now. Towards the end of next year, I'll invite comments, and hopefully will get plenty, to suggest further changes (or reversals). For now I only want to correct errors in the data, and there have been a few reported by PM and e-mail (thanks to those who have done this).
After the review is done, if we come up with changes to the calculations, then they can be applied to all the existing data quite easily, so the change will be very quick.
One thing I am surprised that you suggested is to exclude lower grades. I personally will never support that. While things have been improving lately (e.g. ACT Rifle Club
) , F-Class has in the past been excluded from many TR only competitions and award categories so we should know how it feels to be excluded. I should add that its not a huge amount of extra work to merge A and B Grade scores.
Thanks for your enthusiasm - I'd appreciate it if you could wait until the proposed review and your ideas will be put in the mix.
See you at a shoot soon!
Alan
Menu
Newest members