by Marco Bal
>>
2-8-2014 17:13:06 | |
When I try to open the Formula evaluated 2014 ranking I get the overall ranking. The evaluated alpha ranking is all year allready "strange". It is about time somebody is going to tell Pat Erauw he is not the alpha king because he allready believes it himself. Looking at the point something is going wrong.
| |
by Dylan de Jong
>>
4-8-2014 11:10:45 | |
I checked the forumla evaluated ranking but I get it as it should work. I do not see your problem.
About pat his track he has sent it and it is being investigated. I think the timekeeper will complete it this week.
| |
by Jacques van der Hout
>>
4-8-2014 11:55:45 | |
Check meteen de snelste @ ooit gemaakt van Raymond de Vijlder, sessie van 20 july 2009. Dit klopt zeker niet gezien zijn snelheden in die sessie. En Marco bedoeld de 2014 eveluated ranking van de @500, daar staat Pat Erauw al maanden bovenaan en daar klopt iets niet, heeft niets met een enkele sessie te maken.
| |
by Pat Erauw
>>
4-8-2014 15:28:25 | |
As requested by Martin and Dylan last week, I sent in the tracks from 6 sessions between 2012 and 2014 for the numbers to be checked. I am eagerly waiting for the results and am hoping - with you Marco - that some error has happened in the calculation or upload parameters since beginning of this year. In the meantime, let's not use such sarcastic language, shall we ?
| |
by Marco Bal
>>
6-8-2014 08:35:27 | |
Pat, absoluut niet sarcastisch bedoeld! Het is alleen om je te behoeden van het feit dat je de lat voor het volgend jaar (gezien evaluated ranking) anders niet hoger kan leggen (je staat immers op 1 volgens de ranglijst) maar er is duidelijk een fout in de berekening geslopen. Laatst zag ik ook een discussie met Rob Buis waaraan je aangaf aan Rob dat hij nog een x-aantal plaatsen moet stijgen om je te evenaren. Alles bij elkaar genomen vandaar mijn uitspraak, dat je anders er zelf niet in gaat geloven. Zie ik niets sarcastisch in, enkel een vaststelling. Het is maar hoe je het leest denk ik
| |
by Dylan de Jong
>>
8-8-2014 07:22:04 | |
Hi guys please check if everything is ok now. Thanks for the feedback.
| |
by Pat Erauw
>>
9-8-2014 23:52:30 | |
Dylan, could you please explain once and for all how the evaluated rankings are calculated ? (the concept/the formula)
Thanks
| |
by Marco Bal
>>
10-8-2014 10:38:56 | |
Dylan,
nu lijkt de 2014 alphaevaluated ranking nergens meer naar,kijk zelf maar ;-)
| |
by Marco Bal
>>
10-8-2014 10:39:57 | |
Zo te zien zijn alle rankings in de war!!!
| |
by Martin van Meurs
>>
10-8-2014 20:03:26 | |
Ik heb Dylan even een mailtje gestuurd Marco. De track van PAt wordt bekeken. Hij had de track op verzoek toegezonden.
| |
by Dylan de Jong
>>
10-8-2014 20:40:15 | |
there is something wrong with the evaluated ranking, people who did not sail this month have a "huge" disadvantage. I will fix this but later this week. On Thursday I have my first free evening.
The setup of the evaluated ranking is as follows:
- for every month you get points, the number of points you can get is based on the number of competitors for that month and your personal performance. So the best performing wind surfers gets 400 point for a given month if he is the best out of 400 competitors. The last competitor will get 1 point.
- the points for every month are summarised and gives the standing for the evaluated,
| |
by Jacques van der Hout
>>
11-8-2014 06:44:00 | |
Hi Dylan/ Martin,
Everything is correct now as far i can see. Wonder why Marco thinks it is not. Thanks for the help.
| |
by Jacques van der Hout
>>
11-8-2014 07:16:16 | |
For example i didn't post anything this month and i'm now 330 points behind Ian Richards in evaluated ranking. But sofar this month 385 people post a session. So if i sail this month and for example and i end up 10th in august ranking i get 375 points, so i'm again above Ian again. I think everything is correct as it is now.
| |
by Marco Bal
>>
11-8-2014 13:03:36 | |
Zie eerdere postings Martin. De tracks zijn niet het probleem maar de website, maar op de 1 of andere manier wordt dit niet gelezen of begrepen. Zie de rankings, kloppen niet ...
| |
by Marco Bal
>>
11-8-2014 15:39:49 | |
Oh ik had niet de berichten de pagina 2 gezien van dit topic. Beschouw maar als niet geschreven -;) | |
by Marco Bal
>>
11-8-2014 15:42:59 | |
Jacques, het was al gefixt inderdaad, ik had wat gemist. Zzzzzz | |
by Dylan de Jong
>>
11-8-2014 18:09:18 | |
ok duidelijk dan hoef ik er niet meer naar te kijken (gelukkig). Dank Jaques en goed gevaren vandaag!
| |
by Pat Erauw
>>
13-8-2014 09:54:22 | |
Thx Dylan for the explanation of the evaluated calculation method. There were several different interpretations circulating among riders, but this has cleared it up definitely.
In an evaluated ranking list, when clicking on the numbers next to the name, the detail results for each parameter (AVG, 100m, 250m etc.) are shown. However, for the ALPHA, nothing is shown. I've noticed this since 2012. Is it possible to correct this, so that the details are also shown for the alpha?
| |
by Dylan de Jong
>>
13-8-2014 10:51:38 | |
I will have a look on friday to fix this
| |
by Marco Bal
>>
14-8-2014 22:06:01 | |
The same for the Formula Dylan, is does not shows up. But that has always been. It would be cool when it will work.
| |