The question should be... who has it?<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Ronald Van Putte <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vanputte@cox.net" target="_blank">vanputte@cox.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Well, then we need to give credit where it is due. Who was responsible for the 2011 data? <div>
<br></div><div>Ron</div><div> <br><div><div>On Oct 2, 2012, at 6:50 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">Data may be data but 2012 can be way better than 2011 if we don't have all of the 2011 that we need.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Ronald Van Putte <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vanputte@cox.net" target="_blank">vanputte@cox.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Jim - Data is data. Analysis of data can be skewed, but not the data. As I said in the e-mail, "<span style="font-family:'times new roman','new york',times,serif;font-size:16px">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."</span><div>
<br></div><div>Ron</div><div> <br><div><div>On Oct 2, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Arial;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;font-family:'times new roman','new york',times,serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">
</div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">Hi Ron,</div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"> </div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">
Firstly, thanks for reading our minutes!</div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"> </div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">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.</div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"> </div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">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.</div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"> </div>Jim Quinn<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><br></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;font-family:'times new roman','new york',times,serif;font-size:12pt">
<br><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;font-family:'times new roman','new york',times,serif;font-size:12pt"><font face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b><span> </span>Ronald Van Putte <<a href="mailto:vanputte@cox.net" target="_blank">vanputte@cox.net</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b><span> </span>General pattern discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><br><b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b><span> </span>Mon, October 1, 2012 7:30:30 PM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b><span> </span>[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA BOD Meeting, 27 September<br></font><br>I just looked at the minutes of the NSRCA Board of Directors' Meeting on 27 September: <a href="http://nsrca.us/documents/boardmeetings/Board_Meeting_Minutes_-_09-27-2012.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://nsrca.us/documents/boardmeetings/Board_Meeting_Minutes_-_09-27-2012.pdf</a><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">
<br></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">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."</div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><br></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">Perhaps one of the NSRCA Board members can explain what is meant by, "the older material is slightly skewed." </div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><br></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">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.</div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><br></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">Ron Van Putte</div></div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></div>
</span></blockquote></div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br></blockquote></div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></blockquote>
</div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br></blockquote></div><br>