Are ratings from January not included in this update?

This was the final update for 2005 events. 2006 events will appear in April's update.

I wish somebody would have told me this in the multi-page thread i had before when i was hoping my brother's rating would go down in February and I kept mentioning it... I had his hopes all up that he'd be able to play Am2 again... unfortunately his one great round continues to keep him in Am1. Meh, oh well.

I wish somebody would have told me this in the multi-page thread i had before when i was hoping my brother's rating would go down in February and I kept mentioning it... I had his hopes all up that he'd be able to play Am2 again... unfortunately his one great round continues to keep him in Am1. Meh, oh well.



Well, I had no additional rounds added, and my rating went down one point. Next odd thing is, the 2 rounds that I shot this weekend, and the 2 I'll be shooting in march will likely be higher than my rating, but lower than the rounds that they're bumping out of the double weighting, which will likely bring my rating down further. I can just hope that it lowers my SD so that my rounds from the beginning of last year can be discarded and my rating might finally crack the 900 barrier.

Did the Feb. ratings come out today as advertised? Mine still says it's from January. I renewed the middle of last week online and some of the other players I checked still had ratings from Jan. Am I just nuts or what? rWc :cool:

Yes, the ratings were posted yesterday. I guess we'll have to keep reminding people that their personal ratings date doesn't change unless they have new rounds to include.

Thanks Chuck, Mine changed in December, I think it was, and January, and the last PDGA rounds I played were on September 17. This time it did not change. But that means it also didn't go down! Plus I had a couple of 925 plus rounds last week in a D-Tier (they count I hope?) and will be playing a PDGA event in March then Bowling Green Ams. Thanks for the quick reply! Russ C. :cool:

I'd like to figure out a way for players to know the ratings got updated but also retain the date they were last updated so we don't continually get these questions. The easiest way is to look at the red date for the next update on the PDGA home page to realize they must have been posted.

the easiest way would simply be to add a new rating for the lastest update date, even though the rating didnt change.

the easiest way would simply be to add a new rating for the lastest update date, even though the rating didnt change.

The downside of that is the date, as it is now, at least shows how old a player's rating might be.

Rounds older than 1 year from the date of the event should be dropped.

If you did that, then the ratings of all players who don't play for 2 months would change as rounds dropped off the back end at each update, and eventually a player's rating would either disappear if they don't play for a while or they would drop from being propagators when their rating falls to being based on fewer than 8 rounds. Many of the northern players have a 6-month gap when they don't have rounds from Nov thru April.

If you did that, then the ratings of all players who don't play for 2 months would change as rounds dropped off the back end at each update, and eventually a player's rating would either disappear if they don't play for a while or they would drop from being propagators when their rating falls to being based on fewer than 8 rounds. Many of the northern players have a 6-month gap when they don't have rounds from Nov thru April.



Simple. Drop all rounds older than 1 calendar year, and for sporadic players-until you have the 8 most recent rounds. Since they're not playing that much, the 8 most recent rounds would solve the propagator problem and probably be close to their skill level anyway. I'm pretty sure most people would favor this concept; it is more dynamic for the more serious player, and also as accurate as you could get for an intermittent player.

How can rounds in NOVEMBER 2004 still be killing my rating like this?

A player's rating should not change until they play again (other than data corrections). It's as simple as that. Your ball golf handicap doesn't change until you play again, even if it's a year later.

If we're talking World rankings, that's a separate issue. Ranking systems are tied to relatively current performance although golf still goes back for two years worth of results. But the current year results are worth four times the previous year.

Im still not getting credit for the sleeper in driping springs. What gives? I WAS a pdga member. :confused:

You must be a member when the event occurs or join at that event to get ratings. According to the results, you were not a member. If this is not correct, contact the PDGA office.

Where can I find out when my membership started and ended?

Call or email the PDGA Office. They are the only ones that will have that information.

The question is: When did you register????

PDGA membership goes by calender year.

If you signed up for the first time after Sept 1st, your membership is good till December 31st of this year.

If you were current last year (paid before September 1st), your membership has lapsed and you need to renew.

If you were a past member but did not pay till after 9/1/05 then it depends on the last time you were current.

I payed right before world Dub's 05. So at the time of the said event, I should have been curent. Im still waiting on a response from PDGA. :confused:

The ratings are automatically processed for those the PDGA office shows as members in the database they give Roger. So, if it's fixed there, we can fix it in the ratings.

So mabey they did not put me down as a member at the tourny ? Im sure I can work it out. The squeky wheel gets the grease right? :D

As long as a we have a PDGA number, we can do the calcs and post a rating. Otherwise, we wouldn't know which of the five Cadillackin_McCracken PDGA members played in that event...

You must be a member when the event occurs or join at that event to get ratings. According to the results, you were not a member. If this is not correct, contact the PDGA office.


i would be wiling to bet that if you shot so incredibly good in a few rounds immediately after joining that your rating would be extremely high, then some lower rated rounds from your pre-membership days might be officially included in order to lower your rating and move you a bit down the list. but getting pre-membership rounds included for an average player/member aint gonna happen - you would need to really threaten the very top of the ratings leaderboard.

exactly

I still think rounds older than a calendar year of the rating update should be dropped...Whether they are 1000+ rated or sub 900, let it sink in...

Ain't gonna happen. You make your own rounds, older than 12 months for you, drop by playing.

Whatever...I think your way is inaccurrate.

Other than data entry mistakes, the ratings can never be inaccurate. You shot the rounds. We never change anyone's score. How we determine your average can be done many ways with tradeoffs for each way of doing it. The ratings will be slightly different when done different ways. But regardless of the method, everyone's rating is calculated the same way so the ratings are accurate, meaning the math is done correctly, for that way.

Nobody knows which method will predict your next score because imperfect humans are involved. And that's not even the reason for the ratings, which always was just to do a better job than no ratings at all to get players in fair divisons. That's it. It was never more than that.

Well, there is a perfect way to know what score you shoot the next round. Unfortunately, that's to wait until your score is added. That's absolute precision, but isn't very useful.

Whatever...I think your way is inaccurrate.



You dare question the great and powerful wizard of OZ!

Poof! Your a newt. :D

I should have learned from the movie to hide behind a better curtain... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Other than data entry mistakes, the ratings can never be inaccurate. You shot the rounds. We never change anyone's score. How we determine your average can be done many ways with tradeoffs for each way of doing it. The ratings will be slightly different when done different ways. But regardless of the method, everyone's rating is calculated the same way so the ratings are accurate, meaning the math is done correctly, for that way.

Nobody knows which method will predict your next score because imperfect humans are involved. And that's not even the reason for the ratings, which always was just to do a better job than no ratings at all to get players in fair divisons. That's it. It was never more than that.

Well, there is a perfect way to know what score you shoot the next round. Unfortunately, that's to wait until your score is added. That's absolute precision, but isn't very useful.



I'm not talking forecasted ratings, inflated ratings, predicted scores, or data entry mistakes.

I'm simply saying that the current system is static, it factors too many old rounds in your recent rating. The way to make a rating accurate is to make it dynamic. Rounds from last January or older should not be taken into consideration for ratings now, unless you have only 8 rounds or less.

I'm not going to argue with you or anyone else, I'll let it hit you like a ton of bricks...someday.

Ratings are dynamic. They move when you move. If you're not moving, your rating shouldn't be moving. What you're proposing is to start dropping rounds from everyone's rating whether they are playing or not. That's adding dynamics where none are warranted. I think we know where the bricks are...

I think the ratings volunteers, sub-contractors and employees are doing a great job. Any ratings system is better than what we had seven years ago. Players who never played the game before ratings were being used may be prone to nit pick but I think what we have now is awesome compared to what we had when we had nothing.

Ratings are especially good for players who just aren't getting any better than rec or intermediate. It used to be that they got moved out of those divisions anyway on bump rules.

Ratings have also been good for players who made imprudent decisions to go pro. There is nothing gained by leaving players stuck in divisions where they are not competitive. That just causes people to drop out.

My personal preference would be for hotter ratings for players who are getting plenty of rounds in. Kelsey has 11 rounds since September. How much sense does it make to include rounds from November 2004? I don't know. Maybe it makes a lot of sense. I'm fine with deferring to the people doing the work. We should just thank them and let them carry on.

How much sense does it make to include rounds from November 2004?



Great question.

Several examples, you make the call:
Player A only has rated rounds from August 2004 thru Nov 2004 with a 932 rating and he hasn't played a sanctioned event until the upcoming Memorial due to injury in 2005. Does his rating disappear after Nov 2005? Can he enter Intermediate since they don't have a rating?

Player B has rounds from Oct 2004 thru Aug 2005. She doesn't play again until May 2006. Why would you take any rounds from her Sept rating when updating ratings in Dec 2005, Feb 2006 or April 2006? Maybe she's been practicing and she's better than her Sept rating by May. Or, maybe shes plays other sports during that time and her disc skills are rusty. Nobody knows. The fairest thing is to use her last known rating until she plays again for lack of any other information.

Player C has rounds from Nov 2004 thru Feb 2006. He next plays in May 2006 after the April 2006 update. Should he be upset because his April rating has Nov 2004 rounds in it? Of course. But it shouldn't happen because any rounds more than 12 months earlier than his last rated rounds in Feb will be dropped. The only exception would be if this player had fewer than 8 rounds earlier than Feb. Then, we would go back longer to get 8.

I'll just reiterate that I think the ratings people are doing a fine job with the calls they are making. If a one-size-fits-all strategy works best for them, that's fine by me. I don't think we are paying them enough money to give them any grief.

To the extent that some people are arguing that hotter ratings would be more useful for competitive purposes, I agree with that. But to the extent that they arguing that it is somebody else's responsibility to put in more volunteer or undercompensated hours to make it so, that's a different thing.

You must be a member when the event occurs or join at that event to get ratings. According to the results, you were not a member. If this is not correct, contact the PDGA office.


i would be wiling to bet that if you shot so incredibly good in a few rounds immediately after joining that your rating would be extremely high, then some lower rated rounds from your pre-membership days might be officially included in order to lower your rating and move you a bit down the list. but getting pre-membership rounds included for an average player/member aint gonna happen - you would need to really threaten the very top of the ratings leaderboard.


DATE JOINED PDGA: September 21, 2005

I have results from June 11, 2005... September 10, 2005... September 17, 2005... all on my profile and in my rating. As soon as I joined I posted here requesting that those events be added to my profile. Within a few weeks it was done.

So yes, the PDGA has done this for average players.


-Chris.

then why did Cadillac get refused?

whats worse is why pre-membership rounds are included so as not to have a newcomer as the toprated player in the world. thats just aint right.

If we had sufficient technology volunteers, it wouldn't have been an issue. Either those who weren't propagators would not have been included on the top ratings list as we have requested for several years, or non-props would have been properly marked. Either way, no player whose rating was based on fewer than 8 rounds would have been the top rated player. A similar action has been taken before so we've dealt with it as required. We work with the technology resources we have and use alternative options when necessary.

I agree with Chuck on this one. My buddy is one of the top rated Am's in the world. But that is because he only played one PDGA event, only played one round of the event, shot really well, and has yet to play another PDGA event.

I do not deny that he is really good, he has moved up to Open in unsanctioned play, but the truth of the matter is, you are not rewarded by your player rating. All it is, is an more or less objective view of past performances. The only time that ratings mean anything is in the 2006 Bowling Green Am Championship where you are pooled by your rating until the finals, so players rated well below their current playing level will not compete against similarly skilled players.

Ratings are like a football teams win/loss record. Just because they won a bunch of games the past two months, does not mean they will win the next one. The best it has in a competitive setting is a psychological effect on both the rated player and the people competing against the player who are rated below them.

It would be nice to filter out the non-propagators and see what players rank who actually play a good nubmer of events.

so players rated well below their current playing level will not compete against similarly skilled players.



However, by your logic many of you playing together will actually have the same current skill level but lower ratings than you think your skills deserve... :)