[NSRCA-discussion] Scoring Process Question

Tue Jun 26 16:15:14 AKDT 2007

My heart be still.  I agree with Mark too.

Ron Van Putte

On Jun 26, 2007, at 5:01 PM, <glmiller3 at suddenlink.net> wrote:

> I absolutely agree, Mark.
>
> g
> ---- Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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