[NSRCA-discussion] Judge Rank, 2009 Masters Final

Sat Sep 18 12:28:36 AKDT 2010

  Matt,

What are you using for an algorithm  to get these numbers? Based on the 
fact that they are all below 1000, I assume that a judge who is 10% 
higher than the average gets the same score as one who is 10% low. I 
suggest that adding a plus or minus to the judge score would identify 
which side of the curve a particular judge is on. Also, does a 900 imply 
that the judge has a 10% deviation from the norm? Thus if the average 
score is 8.0, then a judge with a 900 is giving a score of 7.2 or 8.8? 
That would indicate a 750 judge is giving sixes when the rest of the 
world is giving eights.

John

On 9/18/2010 12:17 PM, Dave Burton wrote:
>
> All of this stuff was done while I was away from pattern for a few 
> years, so help me understand how this information is used. What do 
> high ranking judges get out of the system besides an attaboy?
>
> How is it used by CDs, event directors, pilots, etc?
>
> Is anyone paying attention to it?
>
> Who/how provides input into the system?
>
> Thanks, Dave
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *rcmaster199 at aol.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:07 PM
> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judge Rank, 2009 Masters Final
>
> Jon,
>
> That is correct...each of the scores for each judge represents how 
> that judge performed the job (of judging) compared to the other 
> judges. You can read the explenation of how the system works in the 
> NSRCA website under the Judging section.
>
> Scoring a 900 or higher is a big deal in this system. It means that 
> these judges placed each of the pilots very close to where the pilots 
> ended up PLUS scored each of the pilots with minimal deviation from 
> the pilots average score, ie- the score the pilot received for his 
> round. Often, a judge scores well in one of the two categories but 
> very seldon does a judge score well in both.
>
> The program does not look at each individual maneuver score; it looks 
> at the total raw score. Formulas could be created to look at each 
> maneuver but we decided (the Judge Ranking team) not to do it that 
> way. In our view it would have been unecessarily complex. I seriously 
> doubt that a more sophisticated program would produce a more accurate 
> result.
>
> The "throwaways" Ron is talking about are Judge scores that are not 
> high enough to be counted in overall rankings. Only the best 8 scores 
> over a span of 5 years I believe, count in ranking the Judges
>
> regards
>
> MattK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 9:13 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judge Rank, 2009 Masters Final
>
> The ranking system is not perfect.
>
> Sure we'd like a larger sample size, but I don't know anywhere that 
> has more than five judges.
>
> Second, a judge's score is dependent on the other judges. If a judge 
> does a good job in a group of good judges, his scores will be high. 
> However, if a judge does just as well in a group of less qualified 
> judges, his scores will be lower. That's why judges have "throwaways" 
> in the overall judge rankings.
>
> Ron
>
> On Sep 18, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Jon Lowe wrote:
>
> > Thanks Ron. I guess the two columns are from the two rounds we > 
> judged in 2009. I think the inconsistency shown is representative > of 
> the conditions in which my group was judging. 20-25 mph winds, > 
> colder than a .... And not to be disrespectful to the flyers that > 
> day under very difficult conditions, but the flying was also all > 
> over the map; I remember seeing some 8.5's or 9's, followed by a > 
> series of 5's and 6's. Clearly shows the need for a larger sample > 
> size, but I'm not sure we will get it, using only judging from Nats > 
> finals. I did not judge Masters finals this year (was supposed to > do 
> FAI, but got rained out).
> >
> > Jon Lowe
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net <mailto:vanputte at cox.net>>
> > To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> > Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 8:32 am
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judge Rank, 2009 Masters Final
> >
> > Perhaps it's time to reprint an explanation of the NSRCA judge > 
> ranking system. Judges are ranked based on how they compared in > 
> scoring pilots relative to the judging group they were in and in > 
> their relative placing of all pilots, also compared to the judging > 
> group they were in. A perfect score of 1000 means that a judge > 
> agreed with the scores and placins of the judging group.
> >
> > Ron Van Putte
> >
> > On Sep 17, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Jon Lowe wrote:
> >
> > > I have no clue what is being presented here. What does this mean?
> > >
> > > Jon Lowe
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: rcmaster199 at aol.com <mailto:rcmaster199 at aol.com>
> > > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > Sent: Fri, Sep 17, 2010 10:45 pm
> > > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Judge Rank, 2009 Masters Final
> > >
> > > Judge Rankings from 2009 Masters Final. Belated information for > > 
> inquiring minds; This will be on the NSRCA website at some point, > > 
> as I complete the assessment:
> > >
> > > Judge: Scores
> > > R Lewis 879.0 875.2
> > > G Miller 824.3 804.2
> > > J Lowe 720.8 861.4
> > > T Romano 778.9 946.0
> > > M Hunt 757.1 769.8
> > > B Clemmons 903.8 785.1
> > > J Dunnaway 783.7 816.8
> > > J Lechowski 787.3 843.1
> > > RVP 877.2 781.3
> > > T Terrenoiser 884.6 866.9
> > >
> > > Note: First 5 judges judged rounds 1 and 2; the last 5, rounds 3 > 
> and 4
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > MattK
> > >
> > > =
> > > _______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion > 
> > mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> http://> > 
> lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3142 - Release Date: 
> 09/18/10 02:34:00
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100918/3df32ca9/attachment.html>