[NSRCA-discussion] Scoring Process Question

Tue Jun 26 13:14:47 AKDT 2007

I'd have to respectfully disagree on the normalization point.  Normalization
is critical to making sure that one round is not "worth more" than another.

There are a zillion ways to show this by example if need be... But it's
necessary to equalize rounds to various conditions, be it Judging, Weather,
or even mechanical failure of a key pilot.

-M

On 6/26/07 4:56 PM, "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net> wrote:

> Your analysis is correct.  We are even amplifying the significant digit 
error
> by multiplying a score from 0 to 10 by a K value THEN doing the 1000 
point
> normalization on the top score.

If we were trying to send a rocket to the
> moon using these type 
calculations... we wouldn't be sure of getting the ship
> into low earth 
orbit... or maybe we'd be sending it to Pluto.

However for
> comparison for flying... as long as the top scorers are 
reasonably
> consistant, making the 1000 score worth about the same total K 
value each
> round... it will work pretty well.

We could just eliminate the conversion to
> 1000 basis and add the K factor 
multiplied raw scores in a couple of contests
> as an error check...  My bet 
is the contest results don't change.

-----
> Original Message ----- 
From: <glmiller3 at suddenlink.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing
> List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 1:30
> PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Scoring Process Question

> Mike,
>
> Take
> some time and read it with a glass of wine tonight<G>...My point is 
> exactly
> that we are creating an ILLUSION of accuracy which is not 
> statistically
> present.  If my statistics are correct, scores are only 
> accurate to about
> 100 points of the 1000 point scale.  We are deciding 
> most of our contests
> on the statistical "noise".
>
> I haven't proposed any change, I'm just asking
> for ideas......If I had a 
> better solution, I'd offer it.  I think that you
> are right in that 
> expanding the judges score to more digits won't help
> because it is an 
> inherently subjective number that can't be quantified more
> accurately than 
> "about a half a point" on a ten point scale.
>
>
> George
>
>
> ---- Michael Wickizer <mwickizer at msn.com> wrote:
>> My head hurts
> after trying to read and follow that.
>>
>> However, it strikes me that you
> are trying to attach mathmatical and
>> statisical validation to something
> that only has two numbers and that 
>> each
>> contain a varying amount of
> subjectivity.  I am not sure that using a 
>> 1000
>> point per manuver system
> or even greater, would make it more valid but 
>> only
>> an
> illusion.
>>
>>
>> >From: <glmiller3 at suddenlink.net>
>> >Reply-To: NSRCA
> Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> >To: NSRCA List
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> >Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Scoring
> Process Question
>> >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:50:48 -0500
>> >
>> >I'm going
> to open a can of worms here in hopes of coming up with a 
>> >better
>>
> >system out of the discussion.  Perhaps this has been discussed before 
>>
> >and
>> >I'm not aware of it.  Let me preface this by saying I am not a
>>
> >mathematician or statistician, but I have some familiarity with both
>>
> >subjects and the following question has been growing in my mind for some>>
> >time.
>> >
>> >It seems to me that we are judging our maneuvers with limited
> accuracy
>> >(within 1 point in FAI and X.5 points in AMA classes) we are then
> 
>> >creating
>> >the ILLUSION of accuracy by multiplying that score by a K
> factor and 
>> >then
>> >normalizing to a 1000 point scale.  Here is a fairly
> brief explanation 
>> >of
>> >"Significant Digits" that I've copied from the
> web which will introduce 
>> >you
>> >to this thought if you haven't seen it
> before:
>> >
>> >****"SIGNIFICANT DIGITS
>> >
>> >The number of significant
> digits in an answer to a calculation will 
>> >depend
>> >on the number of
> significant digits in the given data, as discussed in 
>> >the
>> >rules
> below. Approximate calculations (order-of-magnitude estimates) 
>> >always
>>
> >result in answers with only one or two significant digits.
>> >
>> >When are
> Digits Significant?
>> >
>> >Non-zero digits are always significant. Thus, 22
> has two significant
>> >digits, and 22.3 has three significant digits.
>> >
>>
> >With zeroes, the situation is more complicated:
>> >
>> >Zeroes placed before
> other digits are not significant; 0.046 has two
>> >significant digits.
>>
> >Zeroes placed between other digits are always significant; 4009 kg has 
>>
> >four
>> >significant digits.
>> >Zeroes placed after other digits but behind
> a decimal point are
>> >significant; 7.90 has three significant digits.
>>
> >Zeroes at the end of a number are significant only if they are behind a
>>
> >decimal point as in (c). Otherwise, it is impossible to tell if they are>>
> >significant. For example, in the number 8200, it is not clear if the 
>>
> >zeroes
>> >are significant or not. The number of significant digits in 8200
> is at
>> >least two, but could be three or four. To avoid uncertainty, use 
>>
> >scientific
>> >notation to place significant zeroes behind a decimal
> point:
>> >8.200 Â´  has four significant digits
>> >8.20 Â´  has three
> significant digits
>> >
>> >8.2 Â´  has two significant digits
>> >
>>
> >Significant Digits in Multiplication, Division, Trig. functions, etc.
>> >
>>
> >In a calculation involving multiplication, division, trigonometric
>>
> >functions, etc., the number of significant digits in an answer should 
>>
> >equal
>> >the least number of significant digits in any one of the numbers
> being
>> >multiplied, divided etc.
>> >
>> >Thus in evaluating sin(kx), where
> k = 0.097 m-1 (two significant digits)
>> >and x = 4.73 m (three significant
> digits), the answer should have two
>> >significant digits.
>> >
>> >Note that
> whole numbers have essentially an unlimited number of 
>> >significant
>>
> >digits. As an example, if a hair dryer uses 1.2 kW of power, then 2
>>
> >identical hairdryers use 2.4 kW:
>> >
>> >1.2 kW {2 sig. dig.} X 2 {unlimited
> sig. dig.} = 2.4 kW {2 sig. dig.}
>> >"******
>> >
>> >My Point is this:
>>
> >
>> >I've seen many contests decided by less than 10 points on a scale of 
>>
> >4000
>> >which has been expanded from (at most) 2 significant digits.  As a
> 
>> >matter
>> >of "statistics" I think that any separation of less than 100
> points (two
>> >significant digits, ie,  3X00 points) is "artificial
> accuracy".
>> >Unfortunately, I don't have any great ideas about how to
> improve upon 
>> >the
>> >current system, I'm just pointing out what I think
> is a scientifically
>> >valid problem with it.
>> >
>> >I smile when I see
> round scores posted to ten thousanths of a point on a
>> >scale that has been
> expanded from two significant digit accuracy to a 
>> >1000
>> >point scale.
> This turns a two significant digit answer into eight
>> >significant digits!
> (ie, 1234.5678)    I think that scientifically, the
>> >scores would be more
> accurately posted as in scientific notation at 
>> >x.x
>> >* 10 to the second
> power.  Most of the contests that I've been to this 
>> >year
>> >have been
> decided essentially by random statistical "noise" rather than
>> >actual
> scoring decisions.
>> >
>> >
>> >Has anyone ever thought/talked about this
> before ?
>> >
>> >Let me add, that despite what I think are statistically
> invalid methods, 
>> >in
>> >most cases the system seems to work pretty well.
> In general the 
>> >superior
>> >pilots get enough better scores to overcome
> the "noise" but it sure 
>> >would
>> >be nice to come up with a more
> mathematically valid solution, IMO.
>> >
>> >George
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> >_______________________________________________
>> >NSRCA-discussion mailing
> list
>> >NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>
> >http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing
> list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> -- 
> No
> virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.9/872 - Release Date: 6/26/2007 >
> 6:43 PM
> 

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion
> mailing 
> list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/
> nsrca-discussion