[NSRCA-discussion] Scoring Process Question

Steven Maxwell patternrules at hotmail.com
Tue Jun 26 14:15:00 AKDT 2007 

Don't remember the year but in the early 80's I flew the Tangerine for my 
last sportsman contest, now intermediate, anyhow I was winning after every 
round and figured I had first place sewed up but to my surprise I came in 
second by .75 of a point this was all raw scores.

Steve Maxwell


From: Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Scoring Process Question
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:14:47 -0400

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 ´  has four significant digits
 >> >8.20 ´  has three
 > significant digits
 >> >
 >> >8.2 ´  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

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

_________________________________________________________________
Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN 
http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list