Revive the Rankings?

[ger]

Alan,
Can we also get a copy of the results posted on this web site?

The rankings will be derived from leadup and queen's event results that are generally available on the websites of the associations that conduct them. However I do not see any technical reason preventing the results from which the rankings are derived being presented, in addition to the rankings list and derivations leading to them. But it may not be a priority.

We first of all have to catch up with the eight or so Queen's that have taken place so far this year. I am not sure how long that will take - the time is mainly in obtaining the records and manipulating them into a [consistent] format suitable for computer processing. With luck we may have something next weekend but not promising.

Initially, at least, these rankings (for want of a better description) will be based on placings (not scores) using the algorithm that was in place for the last few years. Since no-one complained about it (as far as I know) I don't see at this time any pressing need to alter it. But this can be revisited once we have things up and running.

If anyone wants to know what the algorithm was, or is then PM me.

Also, initially, we're only intending doing F-class rankings.

Geoff.

[AlanF]

Alan,
Can we also get a copy of the results posted on this web site?

Norm,

There will be a link to the rankings from this website.

Alan

[gone]

To all with an interest in this, I'm pleased to announce that Geoff Roberts has offered to reinstate the former rankings system for both F-Open and F/TR. I will be supplying him with the data and he will maintain the system which will be incorporated into his OzScore website.

Initially at least, it will be configured identically as it was, including derivations information. When it is up and running, it will be announced here.

Alan

Thank you both Alan and Geoff I assume you mean f standard and f open? maybe Geoff would be nice enough to do start ftr as well

daryl.

[AlanF]

Thank you both Alan and Geoff I assume you mean f standard and f open? maybe Geoff would be nice enough to do start ftr as well

daryl.

Yes Daryl - I did mean to say F-Std and F-Open. Because there are only 2 events on the F/TR calendar so far, this would not provide much data for the ranking calculations. However, using the current calculation method (based on placings) I can't see any obvious reason why we couldn't have an F/TR list. I'll discuss it with Geoff. It will probably need its own calculation parameters to suit. That's okay, because F-Std and F-Open have different parameters now (to suit the different typical field sizes).

Alan

[AlanF]

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.

• 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.

F-Open Rankings
F-Open Derivations

F-Std Rankings
F-Std Derivations

F/TR Rankings
F/TR Derivations

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.

Alan

[RAVEN]

Out bloody standing Alan nice work M8

[Triplejim]

superb effort, perhaps a style sheet on your website to differentiate the columns by colour?

[gone]

Great effort Allan and Geoff

Fantastic effort (even if I did slip a few places) but not as many as I thought I would!

any chance of getting a button up the top or sticky somewhere easy to find?

thank you once again Daryl.

[AlanF]

James, Darryl,

I will be putting these on the website proper, and will attempt to improve the readability.

Will wait a bit before doing that. Would be nice to get the WARA results first.

Alan

[AlanF]

Righto again!

The new F-Class rankings are up and running. They have quite a few differences from the original. I have thought carefully about each change and they are all designed to improve the system.

• The obvious change is the way the placings points are higher in bigger fields. Points go up by about 50% when the field size doubles. This should give a reasonable reward but without unduly disadvantaging the smaller events. See the points table in the About the Rankings page.
• Placings that earn points are extended for larger fields and will always be around a third of the field. This will include more shooters in the rankings.
• Every points amount earned will take 3 years to fully decay. In the former system they decayed considerably faster. This will favour those who can't get to many Queens events.
• Points awarded for Leadup events have been increased to be two thirds of Queens points for the same size field. This should favour long distance travellers who usually do both Leadup and Queens.
• The maximum number of points events to count towards total ranking points has been reduced from 6 to 5. This helps to ensure that we don't have the top ranking shooters clearing out with very big leads, and encourages the "middle class".

So there's a little bit in it for everyone (I feel like the treasurer on budget night !). Anyway, have a look at it and check for errors in your own rankings please. The Explanation page gives the calculation details, and the derivations page should allow you to see how your ranking is calculated.

BTW we still don't have the 2013 WARA results included. I'm waiting for our WA members to squeak their door.

CLICK HERE FOR RANKINGS PAGE

Alan

[Barry Davies]

I have not been to N.S.W Queens or lead up but came 5th in 2012???

Regards
Adam Davies.

[TOM]

Quick question, why is no emphasis placed on a grand aggregate in the rankings? The lead up gets you points, the Queens gets you points and a grand agg gets nothing.... how come?

I would have thought a win or placing over 5 days would be a pretty fair effort.

[AlanF]

I have not been to N.S.W Queens or lead up but came 5th in 2012???

Regards
Adam Davies.

Yes my mistake Adam. I've given you a couple of Rod's placings. I'll wait a few days and fix that and any other reported mistakes together.

[AlanF]

Quick question, why is no emphasis placed on a grand aggregate in the rankings? The lead up gets you points, the Queens gets you points and a grand agg gets nothing.... how come?

I would have thought a win or placing over 5 days would be a pretty fair effort.

That's a fair point Tom, but I figure that the sum of your points in both Leadup and Queens is going to indirectly reward you for your Grand performance.

[Barry Davies]

I thought that be the case Alan, I get called Rod a lot these days! he is my alias for when things go bad, but I'll be happy to take his points

Regards
Adam Davies