[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA BOD Meeting, 27 September

Tue Oct 2 16:43:06 AKDT 2012

Ron - As an engineer I fully understand that not only is data, data. Data is
"King" First of, as Jim said the word "skewed" was inadvertently used. There
is nothing wrong with the data that we have from any prior year. Secondly,
to my knowledge, we do not posses the raw data from the Finals for 2009 or
2010.  That being said, if someone reading this says "oh, I have those
files" Please send them to me. I will take responsibility for the lack of
data for 2011. I ran the scoring that year for Rusty Fried and in re-writing
Dave Guerin's Excel spreadsheet I neglected to link up Judge ID to judge
score for the Finals. That data would be possible to recover manually by
working from paper score sheets that are stored somewhere at the AMA HQ but
I really do not think that is feasible at this time. I apologize for my
mistake. (I am really not that good at SW, I am a HW engineer by
profession!)

As Jim Quinn mentioned, and as was discussed at the BoD meeting; I am
assembling several sets of data for Jim.  The first and simplest set is
simply the judge evaluation data from the 2012 Nats. This was generated by
Scott Smith's program using the criteria that I believe you, Ron, and
several other people came up with. I will also send Jim a set of combined
data from the latest 5 years for which I have results.  Unfortunately that
is only 2008 and 2012. I will also send him a set that includes all data
that I have which has some entries as far back as 2004. 

I hope that explains how we are handling the data for the judge
recommendation, a task which we take quite seriously. I believe going
forward and using Scott's SW for the Nats this will not be an issue in the
future.

Sincerely,

Jon Carter

NSRCA D7-VP

NSRCA Judging Committee Chair

If you wish to discuss this further you can always contact me directly.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ronald Van
Putte
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:55 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA BOD Meeting, 27 September

Well, then we need to give credit where it is due.  Who was responsible for
the 2011 data?  

Ron

On Oct 2, 2012, at 6:50 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:

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.p
df

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

_______________________________________________
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/20121003/2fd0c585/attachment.html>