[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA BOD Meeting, 27 September

[Derek Koopowitz]

Data may be data but 2012 can be way better than 2011 if we don't have all
of the 2011 that we need.

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:

> Jim - Data is data.  Analysis of data can be skewed, but not the data.  As
> I said in the e-mail, "data from one year is no better than data from
> another year.  The data includes contestants, judges and scores.  To me
> that means that data is data and 2012 data is no better than 2011 data and
> so on."
>
> Ron
>
> On Oct 2, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> Firstly, thanks for reading our minutes!
>
> Secondly, at the recent BoD meeting, during our lively discussion, Jon's
> words seemed to flow easily. Reading them in the peace of a quiet evening
> it seemes that "skewed" really isn't the word that should have been used.
> As you know there have been occasions in the judging criteria where all
> hasn't been totally smooth. For some reason Nats data has not always been
> easily available, which is a mystery to me, but it isn't always totally
> clear.
>
> As Judging Chair, Jon is looking at all past Nats and Judging
> criteria including the 2012 Nats. When he has gathered enough data we will
> get together so I can send some names to AMA to be considered as Judges for
> future World Championships.
>
> Jim Quinn
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Mon, October 1, 2012 7:30:30 PM
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA BOD Meeting, 27 September
>
> I just looked at the minutes of the NSRCA Board of Directors' Meeting on
> 27 September:
> http://nsrca.us/documents/boardmeetings/Board_Meeting_Minutes_-_09-27-2012.pdf
>
> It includes:  "Jon Carter discusses FAI F3A judges to recommend for World
> Championship. Ranking is based on Nationals finals for FAI and Masters
> only. Jon recommends that we restart data as the older material is slightly
> skewed. It is decided to use new data from 2012 forward because and due to
> Scott Smith’s new software for scoring."
>
> Perhaps one of the NSRCA Board members can explain what is meant by, "the
> older material is slightly skewed."
>
> I can understand the inference of a skewing of interpretation of judging
> data, but data from one year is no better than data from another year.  The
> data includes contestants, judges and scores.  To me that means that data
> is data and 2012 data is no better than 2011 data and so on.
>
> Ron Van Putte
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20121002/c97d9f82/attachment.html>