I am wondering if there is a bug in the computation of the evaluated alpha ranking ? (beginning of last year it was buggy as well but this was corrected somewhere around midyear 2014)

Shouldn't JVDH be on top ?

1	Pete Young	2387		(12, 19, 9, 33, 31, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
2	Koen Onderbeke	2314		(49, 0, 204, 169, 73, 28, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
3	Jacques van der Hout	2310		(4, 1, 2, 1, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)

Also bugs in other disciplines, 1 hour and i think also the mile is not correct.

Hi guys,

I see no reason why there should be an inconsistency in the evaluated ranking. The example path is showing is correct because Jaques did not make an Alpha in the month june. He posted a session in June but without an Alpha result. The other 2 riders did have an Alpha and that is why Jaques is on the 3 place. Posting nothing in a month weight much more than posting a slow result.

Gerlof can you give me some examples why the hour and or mile are not correct?

You can also click on the numbers the see the details about the counters.

Hope this helps and have fun

Re: Gerlofs remark: here is my control calculation of 1 hour and mile:

MILE

out-of-band data: 
   mar: highest consecutive value:427    out-of-band: Anton J Geesink: 543 ? Erwin Rovers: 639 ? Peter Bruijnen: 757 ?
   apr: highest consecutive value:562     out-of-band: Devon Anderson: 564 ? Shemi Adams: 957 ?

HOUR

seems correct, no out-of-band month values in base data

Pat, clear exposition which highlights the obvious existing bugs in the evaluated rankings.

Perfect pass, hopefully the GPS-crew finally makes work of it.

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the help this really awesome! I will dive into it after the race in Fuerte or when there is no wind I can check it earlier.

Thanks

I will follow up on this point on Thursday or friday. 

I'm in contact with Pat to find out the problem, so we are working on it. 

Hi pete,

Have a look and check if your ranking is correct now. I found a problem and fixed it. 

@all: on friday I publi a new build of the website with a fix for the evaluated listing per user. Currently the alpha ranking is not opening in the list.

Thanks to Dylan for the continuing effort. Glad that we can now see the alpha details.
But the evaluated alpha ranking is still not correct. I've sent him via mail more detailed explanations with examples.

Is there any news on this ?

If there are bugs in the computation of evaluated alpha and mile, there might be any number of (as yet unreported) inaccuracies in other rankings as well, supposing that the computation methods involved are the same.

Please have a look if everything for 2015 is ok now in the evaluated ranking. If not let me know.

Thanks Dylan for the continuing effort. I checked the evaluated alpha ranking manually, it is now correct. 

Anyone seriously doubting other rankings can contact me at pat.erauw[AT]telenet.be, I'll then manually check the ranking using the same method.

Thanks Pat Much apreciated!