When did these things start showing up on the msg board?

I also saw a bug. Someone that doesn't have a rating has a rating rank of 1.

i just put it up tonight. good catch on the bug. unless you were looking at climo :) i'll fix it monday sometime.

good idea or not? i thought it might be interesting to have since all posters are now members.

if ya get a chance, PM with the username who has no rating - it'll help me debug things.

ok, thanks again for the catch. and thanks to robj for pointing out an example. it is now fixed.

I think this is a pretty cool add on. Especially on technique advise threads, and tournament info threads.

You can tell what level player you are recieving advice from, and you can instantly size up your competition for a tournament.

Although 946 is about as high as you need to go to get accurate advice on the ratings system...

Chuck do you mean you or me? :confused: :D

it is worth noting too that there are some 1000+ rated players who aren't nearly as capable of teaching or explaining technique on a message board (or even on the course) as well as someone that may be rated at 906 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=20001)

The "Member since" line might be of assistance when assessing advice, too. ;)

Oh, thanks Pat for letting the world know how much of a weenie arm I am. Yeah, thanks for that! :D

hey, we've got women around her with <800 raings that run around bragging about how they are "Pro". so your rating would not only whip them, but also a fair number of the guys. i'd say keep up the good work! :cool:

so your rating would not only whip them, but also a fair number of the guys. i'd say keep up the good work! :cool:



Hey Sandalman. Thanks for rubbing in that point.... :(

Just when I thought you and Rhett were not related you go and do that! :p ;) :D

What is a 'Rating Rank?'

How is it calculated?

you are the 1,355 highest rated player in the world

Is the rating rank only for those who have registered on the message board?

the "Rating Rank" is for all players, not just board users. ps, impressive use of photorealism in your avatar!

Ratings Rank is calc'd by counting how many players are rated higher than you then adding 1. i named it "Ratings Rank" because, as was pointed out, it is simply your position in the list of all (relatively) current ratings. Chuck is working on some fancier Rankings system, but it wont apply to all players at least at the start, and i didnt want to confuse this system with his. this is a poor man's ranking system, i guess.

it currently uses the most recent rating for all players who have been active in 2004, 2005 and 2006. we could drop people who havent played in sanctioned events since 2004, that would be an easy change.

What is the total number of current players?

2914 (just kidding)

It was around 9500 at yearend. I'm guessing Pat used the yearend figures for this calculation. Everyone who hasn't renewed yet should be dropping out of "current status" soon since the grace period is over, isn't it, Pat?

Pat,

How do I turn this feature off if I don't want my rating to show up in my discussion board profile? I choose not to use an avatar, I'd like to also choose to not have this info show up.

Chap

The truth!

NOTE: I have no problem with people seeing what my rating is. That information is already available under my individual player page. I just don't feel like my PLAYING rating should have any bearing on my DISCUSSION board profile. They're 2 separate issues.

Chap

Member since 7/22/1990

Top 50! yay :)

Chris, you can't be satisfied with that ;)

It was around 9500 at yearend. I'm guessing Pat used the yearend figures for this calculation. Everyone who hasn't renewed yet should be dropping out of "current status" soon since the grace period is over, isn't it, Pat?

chuck estimate is prolly pretty close. i didnt actually count players in order to do the calc... just counted the players higher than the rating.

current status vs grace period is an issue in these (and other) calcs. a late renewer who is active should be included. but someone who hasnt played since 1/3/05 maybe not. someone who hasnt played since 4/1/04 almost certainly shouldnt. but the calc currently doesnt incldue anything of that... i'm just using everyone who was paid member through end of 2004. i could be convinced that 2005 is a better cutoff.

john, i hear your concern and appreciate the input. it would be moderately complicated (but not completely impossible) to track these preferences seperately; it cerainly would not be a slamdunk. at the moment it is probably a "everyone or no one" situation, however, i promise i will look into it.

Pat,

Frankly, if the ratings stay in the DB profile, I'm going to quit using the message board entirely, starting now. Consider this a customer service complaint. I love that you've added these features to the individual player pages, but they don't belong on the message board.

Chap

Pat, would it be possible to have those who happen to not like their rating posted PM you and then you do a case-by-case manipulation to get their rating to come up as *** or simply blank?

It would be nice to find a solution because i think it is really cool info to see. I for one think that those with lower ratings are to be appreciated even more for their love for the sport and membership in the PDGA. The highest rated players are members at least partly because they in effect are saying: Show Me Your Money! :D

I think the ranking thing is kind of meaningless and somewhat discouraging below the top folks who directly play each other. Most everyone's rank will be going down as the PDGA membership increases, even if your rating stays the same for the next five years. In theory, if the membership doubles, twice as many people will soon be ahead of you, unless amazingly, all of the players who will ever be better than you have already joined.

Complete OVERKILL...................

I'm just posting here b/c i didn't notice it earlier and want to see how poorly "rated" i am. :D

Frankly, if the ratings stay in the DB profile, I'm going to quit using the message board entirely, starting now. Consider this a customer service complaint.




What's the big deal? The info is 2 clicks away anyway. People will complain about anything. Thanks for all the hard work.

What's the big deal? The info is 2 clicks away anyway. People will complain about anything. Thanks for all the hard work.



May have something to do with being on the BoD and him thinking that people won't take him seriously when they see his rating. Most poeple probably wouldn't even think to go look at a BoD members rating and with this move they wouldn't have to since it is right there for all to see when he posts. That would also explain why he felt the need to point out that he has been a member since 1990.

What's up with the insecurity Mr. Chapman?

What's the big deal? The info is 2 clicks away anyway. People will complain about anything. Thanks for all the hard work.



May have something to do with being on the BoD and him thinking that people won't take him seriously when they see his rating. Most poeple probably wouldn't even think to go look at a BoD members rating and with this move they wouldn't have to since it is right there for all to see when he posts. That would also explain why he felt the need to point out that he has been a member since 1990.

What's up with the insecurity Mr. Chapman?



OK, one more post, and then I'm done.

No insecurity here. My disc golf record, including all my playing, organizing, and volunteer work stands for itself, although most of that's not included in my discussion board profile. Just the playing part. I only posted my "member since" date because for some reason, it was missing from my profile, so I figured you should have that information as well. By the way, I'm also 6'1" tall, have brown hair, once played trumpet in my high school band, and my blood type is B-negative. Of course, none of those facts are relevant to this discussion board, but of course, neither is my player rating.

Another thing that's interesting is that you can hide your real name and PDGA# behind a couple of clicks, but not your player rating. So, apparently, not even your name is as important in your visible profile as your rating.

All the information contained in this profile is available two clicks in the membership database. That's where it should stay. We don't go to your individual player page and put your discussion board post count over there, because frankly, it's not relevant to how well you play disc golf. We shouldn't post your playing rating on the discussion board, because frankly, it doesn't say anything about how well you express yourself or how involved you are locally, nationally, or globally in the game of disc golf.

Posting the player rating here in the discussion is frankly prejudicial, and I'm glad you recognized that, Mr. Linthicum. I'm glad you also recognize that how well you play in tournaments means absolutely zero in this discussion. So why post the rating here? It's freely available elsewhere on this site.

I've fielded a few complaints about this today already, so this isn't just me complaining, although I'm doing it the loudest. Feel free to respond to me at chappyfade@kc.rr.com, as I'll not be posting here again for the foreseeable future.

Chap

member since 7/22/1990

well, since Mr Chapman is so upset, and even though the response is overwhlemingly favorable, although there are apparently a few phantom complaintants (they must have submitted their complaints thru non-opdga channels, since i get copies of all website submitted emails), i am about to remove this code from the message board.

sorry it didnt work out for John and the phantoms. i thought i was a good idea.

thanks for the support and encouragement from those of you who understood.

So even thought the majority wants them a few guys cause them to be taken away. Thanks fellas. Its not the rating so much since you can see it in the user's profile but the ranking that I liked. :confused:

Pat,

Frankly, if the ratings stay in the DB profile, I'm going to quit using the message board entirely, starting now. Consider this a customer service complaint. I love that you've added these features to the individual player pages, but they don't belong on the message board.

Chap

Is there a word for this we can use on the message board?

I would have bet my paycheck people were gonna gripe. Wouldn't have dared tried to put my money on who though.

I agree with John that it really isn't needed and is a poor way to discriminate amongst users. However, after listening to Chuck's philosophy, I got a solution where everyone will be treated equally: below the name just put "I shoot par." :p

The best solution was an "opt-out", but that takes a lot of coding and time. I'm glad Mr. Brenner removed the rating from the discussion board, but I hardly believe my rants here were the single cause of the removal. I do appreciate him getting those things posted on the indivdual player pages....I think it's cool information, just not for the discussion board.

Chap

i believe a few valid reasons for posting the info here have been provided. this is a community right? and its members only, right? we should act like such.

rating is available elsewhere, but its nice to have here. relative rating, ie ranking, does not exist anywhere else at all.

Everyday it seems like most of the PDGA member base gets wussier and wussier...

and i think you are wrong, for the reasons some others already gave.

dont worry though - you wont be seeing any more of my ideas on the site, as because of this and some other recent incidences, i have terminated my webmaster aggreement with the PDGA. i will continue to work on ad hoc assignments as/if requested, but no more creative thinking.

john, btw, quite a few folks thought it wa a good idea - before it was published - my mistake was that i actually talked to board users instead of the BOD and the Power-That-Be, i guess. oh well, live and learn.... my bad.

peace to all.

Hey! What happened to my player rating and ranking? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Is there a word for this we can use on the message board?

Mangina

Pat, unterminate your termination.

Every job is pretty much thankless. For every opinion, there is an equal and opposite opinion. There will be a critic for every step forward, and every step backward. The 2m rule is lame. The cowboys blow. You get the point. Just stay with it, you are doing a good service.

I agree with John that it really isn't needed and is a poor way to discriminate amongst users. However, after listening to Chuck's philosophy, I got a solution where everyone will be treated equally: below the name just put "I shoot par." :p

but then we'd have to figure out what "par" really is :D

Is there a word for this we can use on the message board?

Mangina



Hit the nail on the head...

james, there's more to it than that, but this board is not place for that discussion.

Well that was nice to have for the few hours it lasted - :(

I'm voting with James. We cannot promote you from message board volunteer to board member if you quit volunteering. Just delete the whole thread and none of this ever happened. That's the normal PDGA-way.

so far i have refrained from about 19 formulated but not typed posts that would have most assuredly taken us down that path :D

I'm voting with James. We cannot promote you from message board volunteer to board member if you quit volunteering. Just delete the whole thread and none of this ever happened. That's the normal PDGA-way.




Poof!

No evidence then no foul.

Seems relatively simple to me.

The american witch hunt mentality of marketing goods and services baffels me. We have to blame someone when a product or idea fails. Why? Not every idea will work, not ever product is good. There will always be bugs, defects, and busts. It is the natural process of product development and even invention.

Pat's idea about posted ratings and rankings did not pan out as planned. So what, it was a great idea that just did not have the desired results. I do agree with John's complaint about relativity, even though I had posted about knowing the skill level of the player giving advice. While that was not intended to be little the advice of lower rated players, it was merely another reference device. After all Blake is still rated as a MA2 player!

To give you an idea about how the witch hunt mentality of the United States has hurt us....

Japan rolls out ideas constantly. If 1 idea/product succeeds out of 100, then it is considered a great success.

How many American Video electronic and Automotive manufacturers are doing well now days? How many Japanese companys in these industries are succeeding?

Hmm?

Don't go because of this Pat. Don't lose heart.

going does not equal losing heart. i'll lose my putt before i lose my heart. in fact, that may have already happened judging from my recent rounds :D

again, this isnt the place for a more thorough discussion, but if you had been put through what i have been put through in the last couple weeks....... (and i dont mean by common ordinary members like you ad me)

Don't go Sandalman. You're the only one that seems to listen to us. :(

i'm still here as a poster. that wont change. and maybe after the elections i can be a voice for openness and helping the Office and the membership together take us to a better PDGA and future of the sport.

Chappy better be prepared for the lawsuit to pay for my carpal tunnel syndrome. Those two clicks add up quick when I'm clicking on everyone to find out what their rating is! I'm going to call my lawyer now...Bruce?!? :D

Sorry, Jon, I'm busy. See my "location" for why!

and i hardly believe this was the only place you ranted. you might not like the feature, but please dont assume i am stupid.

Click. Click. And, by the way, everyone can just ignore anything Jon has to say because he has a rating like, well, you do your own two clicks and see. :D

i'm still here as a poster. that wont change. and maybe after the elections i can be a voice for openness and helping the Office and the membership together take us to a better PDGA and future of the sport.



You got my vote...

My rating is 820 and I'm PROUD OF IT BABY!!!!!

There is always a calmer wind blowing on the last place card.

No tension!.. :cool:...No worries!... :)...No egos!... :o....And no curse words!!!!... :cool:....By the time the last round comes around all that is history. :)

Just the sound of your fellow card members saying... "Man, can we pop the lid on these brewskies now?" :)....or.... "Man, you thought your shot sucked,....take a look at mine!" :D..or... "How much will you guys give me if I hit that squirrel?" :o

Us lower rated players don't need no stinking plastic.....We want that ace pot cash!!!!! :cool:

Wow.

Squeeky wheel really does get the grease, doesn't it?

That was some of the most pathetic whining I've ever heard. No. Seriously.

Pat --- I loved the ratings and ranking feature on the discussion board. Thought it completely valid and relevant. But that's just my opinion. Just as it's merely John Chapman's opinion that it was a bad idea.

But it appears that Mr. Chapman's opinion carries a little more weight than those of a mere member.

thanks Rooster. i appreciate the support.

personally, i dont believe a player rating has anything to do with one's qualifications for BoD eligibility. in fact, having some lower rated players on the BoD, especially ones with some years of experience, is far superior to having that segment under-represetnted.

Pat,

Please don't take this personally as it is not meant as an attack on you but why would I or any other PDGA member want to vote for someone who gives up so easily. If a few minor complaints are all that it takes for you to quit, you certainly will not last very long as a BOD member.

For the record, I love stats and I really like the rating rank but I have to agree with John, it belongs on the player profile page and not on the discussion board. I hope you continue working with the website. I like some of the things you have been doing.

Regards,
Brian Graham

I like the stats as well. Just thought it was a little overkill having it on the MB.

Where as the member since information would be useful here. It looks like some of the dates are missing in the database though.

Pat,

Please don't take this personally as it is not meant as an attack on you but why would I or any other PDGA member want to vote for someone who gives up so easily. If a few minor complaints are all that it takes for you to quit, you certainly will not last very long as a BOD member.

For the record, I love stats and I really like the rating rank but I have to agree with John, it belongs on the player profile page and not on the discussion board. I hope you continue working with the website. I like some of the things you have been doing.

Regards,
Brian Graham



The same can be said for you Brian, I mean why would I or anyone else vote for someone who does not listen to the majority of the "members"?

Pat,

Frankly, if the ratings stay in the DB profile, I'm going to quit using the message board entirely, starting now. Consider this a customer service complaint. Chap



Did this guy really become a Bod with that quiting personality :D

I Think that was a Genius Idea Pat!!! & if it were up to the majority it would still be there :mad:

I also liked Pat's innovation and am sorry to see it go. Good thing I still know everyones Reged: and Loc: Now there's some quality info.

I Think that was a Genius Idea Pat!!! & if it were up to the majority it would still be there :mad:

I agree , thanks Pat!!

Please don't take this personally as it is not meant as an attack on you but why would I or any other PDGA member want to vote for someone who gives up so easily. If a few minor complaints are all that it takes for you to quit, you certainly will not last very long as a BOD member.


i dont take it personally at all Brian, and thanks for the kudos. this is not the place for me to address any (mis)perception that i have "given up" "easily". today and the rating/ranking thing is not my primary concern.

FOR THE RECORD:

1. i have been given an Ace Club membership for the last two years by the PDGA as a thank you for the work i have done on the website in the past. the membership was applied to the current year, but was a thank you for the previous year's work. that means my current Ace Club membership was for 2005 efforts. Today i just sent my full $150 Ace Club membership cost to the PDGA, for the 2006 membership year. There was no real need to do so, except that i could not overcome the feeling that i was stealing somehow - even though i am fully aware that my 2006 membership was offered gratis for 2005's work. i further asked Brian Hoeniger to please not pay my stipend for acting as webmaster/project manager for the two months or so that my agreement had been in effect. i support the overall goals and objectives ofthe PDGA. i am not "giving up!"

2. i have offered to continue to work as i have in the past - on ad hoc projects for the website as requested by whomever next accepts the role of webmaster/project manager. (who knows, maybe someone will ask tht i put the ranking on the member stats page.) i am not "giving up!"

3. it wasnt easy. again, for the many-ith time, this is not the place to discuss how this straw became the one that broke the camel's back.

***************************
now, (and this is for everyone). this is the Information Age. get with the program. the easier information is available the better. ratings/rankings provide information in the most frequented part of the entire website - and ratings are one of the single most liked benefits that the PDGA provides (if my memory of the survey is correct) and rankings never existed before!

i have been doing project management of IT projects, business analysis, and information presentation for 20+ years. i know how to get useful information to people where and when it is best used. overkill? ok, dont read it. interesting and useful? well then it saves a bunch of clicks.

i'll put up my ratings/rankings against a "Reged" date any day of the week. and also against location, since location can be any nonsense the user wants to type.

did you ever wonder who was giving advise? did you ever wonder how good a player was - while you were reading his/her writings/rantings? of course! now instead of having that info you get to click click click to find it. except for rankings - which no longer exist.

so, "give up easily"??? NO , i plead not guily to both counts.

in fact i offer the above as valid and compelling reasons to put me in the role of Oversight Director - to encourage transparency and forward thinking in our sport and its governing body.

now, (and this is for everyone). this is the Information Age. get with the program. the easier information is available the better. ratings/rankings provide information in the most frequented part of the entire website - and ratings are one of the single most liked benefits that the PDGA provides (if my memory of the survey is correct) and rankings never existed before!

i have been doing project management of IT projects, business analysis, and information presentation for 20+ years. i know how to get useful information to people where and when it is best used. overkill? ok, dont read it. interesting and useful? well then it saves a bunch of clicks.

i'll put up my ratings/rankings against a "Reged" date any day of the week. and also against location, since location can be any nonsense the user wants to type.

did you ever wonder who was giving advise? did you ever wonder how good a player was - while you were reading his/her writings/rantings? of course! now instead of having that info you get to click click click to find it. except for rankings - which no longer exist.

so, "give up easily"??? NO , i plead not guily to both counts.

in fact i offer the above as valid and compelling reasons to put me in the role of Oversight Director - to encourage transparency and forward thinking in our sport and its governing body.



Word.

"The same can be said for you Brian, I mean why would I or anyone else vote for someone who does not listen to the majority of the "members"?



I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to mean as I am not running for any position. :confused:

Regards,
BG

"The same can be said for you Brian, I mean why would I or anyone else vote for someone who does not listen to the majority of the "members"?



I'm not quit sure what that is supposed to mean as I am not running for any position. :confused:

Regards,
BG



Should you become eligible for re-election, I will vote accordingly. Ya heard?

The best solution was an "opt-out", but that takes a lot of coding and time. I'm glad Mr. Brenner removed the rating from the discussion board, but I hardly believe my rants here were the single cause of the removal. I do appreciate him getting those things posted on the indivdual player pages....I think it's cool information, just not for the discussion board.

Chap



I agree that the information could be useful on the player pages. It could be more player information that could be automatically programmed and become a useful PDGA asset. The ranking idea could be used several ways including a ranking by rating, which would be a little different than the rating as it would start from 1 and move up by each rating. As there are some missing ratings, my rank at a 973 rating would be 58, while Kenny's would be 1 and Barry's 2 and so on. Or, it could be by strokes. Kenny would be at Par or under, depending on the starting point, and I would be about +6 to Kenny. Just a thought.

Frankly, if the ratings stay in the DB profile, I'm going to quit using the message board entirely, starting now. Consider this a customer service complaint. I love that you've added these features to the individual player pages, but they don't belong on the message board.

Chap

Mr.Sandlaman
since when did this guy get the right to be the voice of all of us,if he wants to quit then let him quit.I don't recall voteing this guy the voice of the pdga message board :mad::mad::mad:

Hey Pat, I thought the new information was useful, and its location on the message board was simply the best, most visible place to put it for it to get noticed (duh!) It seems to have worked. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Along that same line, if you had just placed the new information on the individual player pages only, it may have gone unnoticed for quite some time... at least until the next ratings update. Personally, I don't look at the individual player pages that much, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

Regardless of the "right or wrong" aspect of this information being placed on the message board, it's quite sad that a BoD member had to come in here and throw a temper tantrum to get it removed. What Mr. Chapman doesn't seem to realize is that, while his rating and ranking scores aren't particularly disturbing to anyone here (but himself, maybe), his childish negotiating skills certainly are. Furthermore, they do not seem compatible with the position he now holds within the PDGA.

Hey Pat, I thought the new information was useful, and its location on the message board was simply the best, most visible place to put it for it to get noticed (duh!) It seems to have worked. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Along that same line, if you had just placed the new information on the individual player pages only, it may have gone unnoticed for quite some time... at least until the next ratings update. Personally, I don't look at the individual player pages that much, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

Regardless of the "right or wrong" aspect of this information being placed on the message board, it's quite sad that a BoD member had to come in here and throw a temper tantrum to get it removed. What Mr. Chapman doesn't seem to realize is that, while his rating and ranking scores aren't particularly disturbing to anyone here (but himself, maybe), his childish negotiating skills certainly are. Furthermore, they do not seem compatible with the position he now holds within the PDGA.



I completely agree. I wonder if the BOD feels the pulse of the "member" base now.

to TFO and BamBam...

thanks again for the support, but no further comment from me on your specific points. (you can take that to mean that i totally agree with your sentiments but do not wish to discuss the behind the scenes shenanigans in this forum)

just one more post pat and you can have 6,000 :D

One argument they have is that a very small portiion of the user base uses the discussion board.

Is there a list of the BOD members anywhere on the PDGA site ?
I think a list that includes small bios and a brief decription of the position would be a good thing.

i looked a couldnt find it. maybe instead of ragging on me for a cool new feature they shold have been pressing me to increase accessibility to the BoD members.

please god make me stop typing now.

Adam, but whos counting? how do you know that anyway? i honestly (not making this up) do not know how to check my post count anymore. but i spose i'm at 6,000 now. :D

Click the user name, then show all user's post. It shows a total at the top of the page.

Adam is just a few (60ish) under 6000 as well.

Click on your name on the "Who's online" page and look at the "show all user's posts" at the bottom of the profile and it is on there.

I lost 700 when the gainsville club didn't renew. Is there any way I can get them back?

Your right. I can't find a current list of PDGA officials on the site. I'm a SC and my name isn't very easy to find. I'm not a web whiz, but that should be a "couple clicks" to find information.

Do your posts on letter at a time, one letter per post, and you can get 700 posts back pretty quickly. But do it somewhere no one is actually looking. Make a new thread for it in the Waterford Junior Girls Club area! :D

scooter, i am not a board admin anymore, so i cant help on that. (couldnt anyway really, thats a policy decision, it wasnt mine to make in the first place)

I had to go to the PDGA Official Announcements - Summit Meeting thread to find a list of the BoD.

Click the user name, then show all user's post. It shows a total at the top of the page.

now thats not a drain on precious database cycles, now is it! :D

That was only half of the 700 and 200 of them were talking to EF_Bomber.

I am not a "Girl" though. Well I guess I am not even a Jr now. :confused: :D

yeah Bruce, isnt gender discrimination a felony in your state? :D i think bruce is either a) trying to get matt to look like a pedophile or b) pre-empt a gender discrimination civil case. :eek:

He is organizing a Kill the boy with the ball league and I am the permanent ball carrier. Ima going to DIE :D

Rather than just indicate that rankings are not a useful way to represent the average player's position in a player pool that's expanding, I'll offer a way to do it that should be more useful and less discouraging. Provide a player's percentile to three digits instead of ranking. For example, if the player's rating ranks 2000 out of 10,000 members, they would be at .800 or 80th percentile. As the PDGA grows and the player stays about the same rating, their percentile will stay about the same even though their ranking will continue to drop.

The rating for different percentile levels can be tracked to see how the membership distribution is changing over the years. If the rating at the halfway point (.500 percentile) continues to fall, it shows that the PDGA is bringing new lower rated players into the organization.

I track where I am relative to GM pros by state, region and nationally. My rating is typically in the 45th to 55th percentile at A-tier and Majors. Since payouts usually go down only to the 60th percentile, I know I'll have to play a few shots better per round to cash in my division

The weakness of overall ranking occurs because men and women are mixed together, pros and ams, and different ages. For example, I doubt that Climo or Schultz would want to know their income ranks 5083rd and 5084th (just made up) among all professional sports figures in the World. The fact they are in the top 5 in disc golf is worthwhile because they're ranked in their peer group.

yes and no. percentile is cool, but ranking is also. [ercentiles are cool for the reasons listed. the part about tracking by GM (age protected division) seems to run counter to your mid-Nationals philosophy.

perhaps both percentile AND rankings are valid afterall. i'd be happy to code for percentile - its an easy calc and could be displayed along with rankings.

whe player today today doesnt wanna tell their grandkid someday "hey punk, i was 2260th in the world back in the day!" (well, except for everyone ranked higher, but you get my menaing.)

one other point... this isnt about climo and schultz. its about the other 9498 members.

The ranking idea could be used several ways including a ranking by rating, which would be a little different than the rating as it would start from 1 and move up by each rating. As there are some missing ratings, my rank at a 973 rating would be 58, while Kenny's would be 1 and Barry's 2 and so on.



Why isn't the ranking like Dave's example?

I liked having the R & R on the messedup board and I'm glad I got to see it earlier today. I was surprised when I returned and it was gone :confused: I thought something must be wrong with the system. Then I read this thread. There is definitly something wrong with the system! :(

Click the user name, then show all user's post. It shows a total at the top of the page.

now thats not a drain on precious database cycles, now is it! :D



Yeah but it broke this monotony up for a bit :D

another brilliant BOD decision

Rating: 947
Ranking: :confused:
Posts: 573

wow, go to a course for a few hours, come back -- and look what we have here. That really cool rank and rating info GONE! Must have been a lot of people unhappy with it. I can't for the life of me figure out why. If you are rated 300 and a PDGA member it means you love disc golf. That's a lot more admirable than the guy who is a PDGA member because he is taking everybody's money...

I don't get the argument that it is discriminatory. Who is going to judge what you say based on your rating rather than the content of your message?

Pat, i think you should put it back. Did the BoD vote on the issue? Did those voting against it represent the membership or their own personal opinion with their vote? You are doing a great job and should stick to your guns.

Those against it should give it a week and see if anything negative REALLY arises from it being there.

I like you and appreciate the work you do here but can't say i want you on the BoD if you are going to champion re-instating the
2 M Rule as a default scenario. :p

I don't get the argument that it is discriminatory. Who is going to judge what you say based on your rating rather than the content of your message?




Wow AviarX and I actually agree on something... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

that's just how CRAZY taking the info away is! :D

Blake T told me he would just as soon not have his rating known because people discriminated against his driving advice because he's an intermediate player. So, it is relevant to some people.

Blake never even plays tournaments. There are like two in his rating right now. He gives his knowledge of the game and if it went by rating Gateway would be the best since Dave M is 974 vs Dave D's 973 and Jim K's 924. If you base someone's advice on player rating then you are just WRONG. :D

Pat, i think you should put it back.


rob, i am not allowed to put it back.

the answers to your other questions are not known to me.

Pat, i think you should put it back. Did the BoD vote on the issue? Did those voting against it represent the membership or their own personal opinion with their vote? You are doing a great job and should stick to your guns.



I was the one who asked Pat to remove the new ratings and ranking feature. There are some technical issues that Pat wasn't aware of that I've been dealing with, and this change was aggravating an already serious technical problem we're having with our server (I'm sure you've noticed response time problems over the last few weeks). At some point in the future, we hope to have these problems resolved.

I have overall responsibility for the pdga.com server and website (I have been in charge of the PDGA's IT systems since shortly after I joined the board in 2002), and I'll have to say it's not easy juggling the demands of such a large user base. Pat has done an excellent job with all of the web projects that he's helped us with, and his skills and enthusiasm will be missed by the organization.

-Theo Pozzy
PDGA Commissioner

Ok I noticed that the rankings were added to your player profile so I am no longer that upset about the removal of the stats from the boards.

i have to take them down from there also because i did not get prior approval to make the change. i forgot i had made that upgrade, or it would be gone by now. so thanks for reminding me!

Well that's just awesome. So we have to go back to the counting method to find what we are ranked? That is "happy" for lack of a better word.

Blake T told me he would just as soon not have his rating known because people discriminated against his driving advice because he's an intermediate player. So, it is relevant to some people.



Chuck, Blake T. has been a big help to me and that is why in a post upthread i wrote:


it is worth noting too that there are some 1000+ rated players who aren't nearly as capable of teaching or explaining technique on a message board (or even on the course) as well as someone that may be rated at 906 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=20001)



or, as Matt just put it:


"If you base someone's advice on player rating then you are just WRONG."



In fact that is the BEAUTY of what Pat had done till he was instructed that he must remove it. The membership would begin to learn and appreciate that ratings are a good indicator of what someone is capable on a disc golf course -- and NOT necessarily indicative of how well they know or can teach disc golf technique. Further, rank &amp; ratings don't indicate how much someone does for the sport of disc golf -- in terms of volunteer work on behalf of our sport.

To all against publishing this info beside our posts:
Your rating and rank is factual data and to treat it as a judgement or as discriminatory is ludicrous. Give the membership more credit than to think they would judge you by your rating . If it helps -- think how many non-PDGA disc golfers there are out there and change the number relative to your rank amongst the extra 100,000 of them if it makes you feel better... (i am guessing at the number)

Let's get those rankings back up! And, let's change "reg'ed on" to PDGA number. Double clicking to check those things out is too time consuming. Consider it as a perk of membership that the info is there. non-members aren't rated or ranked

"member since" helps mitigate the issue as well. a member since 1990 with an 880 just very well may be a formerly kickbutt disc golf monster with insane amounts of quality info to share, but who is suffering from normal and entirely predictable declines in the ability to physically execute.

member since + rating + ranking is sweet. (and need not require a click click click to access from the board.)

"member since" helps mitigate the issue as well. a member since 1990 with an 880 just very well may be a formerly kickbutt disc golf monster with insane amounts of quality info to share



sure, and some people devote their time to helping disc golf rather than working on their game. plus, if we were to rank a player's love for the game -- those who have been members for years but don't have high ratings would have to get bonus points. whoever has fun is a winner


member since + rating + ranking is sweet. (and need not require a click click click to access from the board.)



rating + ranking and almost member since ... how sweet it ... was /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

PROPS TO ALL!!!

i just want to take a timeout and express appreciation for everyone being cool on this thread and delivering their opinions in a professional manner.

i credit Rhett with setting the current overall tone and demeanor of the board, and offer congrats to us all for conducting a discussion in a non-contentious manner, even though there is an element of tension.

i doubt this would have been possible or likely even three months ago, so whether youwant rankings or not, THANKS!

Frankly, I think seeing a person's name is the most important thing to see without fishing. After that, nothing else is really relevant for post credibility other than your actual words. I would think clarity and support for your opinions are most important items in a post.

Imagine if single guys at a bar had to have their income printed on a name tag. To me, that's just as irrelevant as having your rating or ranking or percentile listed by your posts.

you were offering helpful input at the beginning of the thread chuck. now it seems you are against displaying the data. maybe i'm wrong, so please tell us - for you and you alone - do you see any harm in offering this info on the board? do you see any gain? how would your answers be different if you considered the feelings of other members?

"member since" helps mitigate the issue as well. a member since 1990 with an 880 just very well may be a formerly kickbutt disc golf monster with insane amounts of quality info to share, but who is suffering from normal and entirely predictable declines in the ability to physically execute.

member since + rating + ranking is sweet. (and need not require a click click click to access from the board.)



Glad to see a way that credibility is not unique to those whose throwing skills are also peaking. And in the spirit of more information being better plus I�ll agree with Chuck, how about real name as id. I still like using fossil as self deprecating humor and even named my course Fossil Hill so maybe another line for real name could be coded.
Thanks to Pat and everyone who cares about or works for our organization.

i actually misspoke slightly... i should have said:

"member since + rating + ranking + percentile is sweet"

but a lot of people like seeing that info. even with your singles bar analogy -- it's not like it won't get found out at some point if things develop ;)

are you just trying to provide cover for the knee-jerk pulling of the plug, or do you feel that way strongly enough to oppose an opt-out or opt-in feature if it became feasible?

I have no problem with the information being available in the player's profile or PDGA Member area. I'd love to see a lot more information there. I see more negative than positive reasons for having it by the person's name or avatar by their Discussion Board posts. I only vaguely understand the server aspects but if more cycles are required to constantly pull the info in to everyone's posts then it also seems like losing performance on the board isn't worth it if the info can still be found where all of the other member info is located in one place.

There are sorts and filters of ratings and points info that seems much more valuable than this that we've been waiting for for years now. It would be great to see some of that because I get those questions regularly such as, "Why can't I see the top rated (or points) Adv GMs.

Okay, well i don't want my "Reg'ed" info posted to the left of my messages then. Why is it there? Message Board crashes have made that date inaccurate and all the thing does it create drag on the website /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

As I said, I'd trade that for the person's name...

can you remember "W" means president bush? do you have any doubts about who sandalman is? or Xudong_Brakel? or Neon/Zeus? come on, chuck, your ratings rock, but your arguments are kinda lightweight

Actually I think it is a good idea. There are people I meet on the course from the message board but I only know some of the by thier user name. Heck I didn't know Mike Olse was Heavyvynyl until 5 months ago. :D

I'm just making the point that someone's identity would seem to be the most important item for someone to know beyond the words of their post. If we don't have that by the posts, the other stuff like their ratings and rankings seems much less important near posts. I'd love to see full member info areas where people can have photos (pixel limit), favorite courses, the discs in their bag, first ace, best finishes, ranking, rating and percentile, etc. Have all that info there but not by the posts.

It's a good idea but so is leaving the rating and rank up there as well. :p

altho i dont see any value in knowing at a glance whats in a playersbag or when they hit their first ace. the PDGA doesnt track that stuff anyway. and some people throw Wham-O, or something like that anyway.... some wierd new disc manufacturer like that i heard something about the other day.

some people throw Wham-O, or something like that anyway.... some wierd new disc manufacturer like that i heard something about the other day



:eek:

So what those other or new companies don't matter? Maybe I missunderstood but what did you mean?

Just like it's hard to tell whether players are comfortable with their rating or ranking displayed, who's to judge whether they want info like their first ace or the discs they carry to be known? We know that players post this info on other threads. But it would be easier to post it in their personal profiles.

Frankly, we discussed whether to post ratings when they were first developed or keep them a personal piece of info other than for TDs. We know from comments over the years that some percentage of players would prefer their rating not be known except for TD purposes. Even now, the purpose of ratings is still to place players in the appropriate division. I could argue that just showing the division or color range for a player's rating meets the primary intention of the ratings system.

what the organization uses the ratings for and how the players use them are not always in perfect alignment. same with rankings.

we have info. lets use it. while i cannot sympathize with not wanting it shown, i can certainly empathize, so ok fine, make it optional.

but for petes sake, the core problem with what happened today is not the "opt in/out" issue.

i think he was just pointing out that what someon's favorite course or disc is isn't PDGA tracked info like ratings or name. He was being humorous -- Wham-O gave us the frisbee which led to disc golf, but these days it probably sounds like some obscure Johnny-come-lately to the new generation.

Gateway, Discraft, and Innova have some formidable sponsored players. Is there anyone on Team Wham-O?
And more to the point -- what is their ranking? :eek: :D

Pat,

You will be sorely missed, even though you aren't going anywhere. I hope you will continue to PM me when you think I am off base, and to also answer PMs when I am looking for a reality check. :)

I also really hope you change your mind.

I hope this doesn't hurt your campaign.......I fully support and will absolutely cast 4 votes for you for Oversight Director. No offense intended to the incumbant, but I'm not sure who that is.

Maybe Chinese challengers will emerge around the time of the Beijing Olympics in a few years.

matt, i was just goofing on wham-o cuz they are both the original AND the newbie. Gateway is cool with me, as are the handful of established mfgs. i'd say the current crop of gateway sponsored players are the best thing ever for them. they have a good product,but with you guys rippping it up out there, you're bringing in new believers.

cool! i've always been a fan of the Yao Ming election method :D

I wasn't talking about Gateway I just read it as dusting the other companies off as pooh :D

while we all rag on the PDGA for occasional technical difficulties, check out what i just found on YAHOO!!!!

******************************

Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /opt/bidclix/http-web/adserve.php on line 148

Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /opt/bidclix/http-web/adserve.php on line 205

Warning: mysql_query(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /opt/bidclix/http-web/adserve.php on line 206

Warning: mysql_query(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /opt/bidclix/http-web/adserve.php on line 706


************************

thats a multi gazillion dollar public company, with php errors on its page.

go help them! :eek: :D

already got it fixed, but i'm expecting a phone call in the morning :D

...I hope you will continue to PM me when you think I am off base, and to also answer PMs when I am looking for a reality check...

now we know where all those performance issues are coming from! Rhett, clear out that Inbox, fella!

Kirk Yoo was elected to the position of Oversight Director in 2005. His term runs out in 2007.

I thought Kirk was "elected" between terms to serve out the remainder of the term of someone who resigned because he did not feel like he had a mandate from the players to clean up our felony problem in Arizona and Louisianna.

Oversight director should up for election this year.

Is it any wonder that the majority of folks truly involved in the running and promotion of this sport avoid this PDGA Message Board like a leaper colony? When the favorite pastimes of users are witch hunts, slanders, half truths, and just basic hate?.

Even our own webmaster and an ex-board of directors member indulge when it fancies them.

I don�t know any other way to describe it other than to say that it is truly shameful behavior and should not be tolerated. By anyone!

Where are the voices of those who see these petty and mean-spirited attacks for the ungracious and malicious acts they are?

Think about it; if you were out on the course and someone in the players meeting started mouthing off like this to the TD, a personal buddy of yours, how long do you think it would be before they�d get what was coming to them? Seriously! Do you think it�s some kind of funny joke to publicly accuse the TD at his own event of doing illegal or dishonest things? How about belittling them? This really is outrageous! Where are the voices of reason and gratitude, of understanding and respect, of constructive and honest caring?

Have they all been completely and totally shouted down by the louts of this forum?!?

who do you consider the lout(s)?

there has not been a petty or mean-spirited attack on this entire thread (so far) so lets keep it that way.

who do you consider the lout(s)?



it's clear that neon wouldn't lump himself in with the louts. that post made it clear that he feels he is better than the majority. again.

Election results (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2005/05ElectionResults.pdf)

I voted for Kirk. I'd vote for him again.

who do you consider the lout(s)?



it's clear that neon wouldn't lump himself in with the louts. that post made it clear that he feels he is better than the majority. again.



Perfectly put!

Dang it, I never looked to see my player ranking before it got erased.

Pat, can you look at it for me??? I like to be able to tell people I am ranked XXX best out of all tournament players. Kinda looks good. (last I checked, I was top 50 in Texas :D)

Election results (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2005/05ElectionResults.pdf)
...



That link does show that oversight director is up for election in 2006.

Very unfortunate that we just can't deal honestly with some issues instead of sweeping them under the rug. The problems I alluded to are problems which pertained to the PDGA as a corporation, and to its directors, and not necessarily to the TD of any particular event. Go read the law [you can find a free source for it with Google] and tell me which part is not clear. I think if you read enough of the statute you'll see that the presumptive penalty for a corporation is a $250,000 fine.

First of all I want to say that I liked having ratings and rankings on the message board. On certain subjects it would be relevant. Suppose I'm asking how to throw a roller in the Throwing Techniques section. Rating info right there would tell me whose advice I should be taking and whose I shouldn't.

Yet another reason to have ratings and rankings available is that we are a competitive organization. That's why we have tournamentsand a competition director and a competition committee. Shouldn't knowing how you stack up against everyone else be part of that?

But enough of that and on to the main point of my post. Theo said there were serious technical issues with our server.

There are some technical issues that Pat wasn't aware of that I've been dealing with, and this change was aggravating an already serious technical problem we're having with our server


What issues have we got that keep Pat's new feature from being implemented? And more importantly if we are aware of these problems, what actions are being taken to correct them? I think these are important questions because the most unique thing the PDGA offers (other than the magazine) is the ratings system. If we lose our server because it goes down, what do we now have to offer to potential members?

those must have been the technical issues that Theo alluded to. you know, the ones that he has been trying to eradicate since 2002. funny how after three or four years those problems have not been resolved. funny too how my code from last sunday caused those problems :D

You merely aggravated those problems.

One way to lessen the load would be to create a static table after every ratings update with no calculations and just the current members that have ratings.

really? send me the error logs so i can validate your assertion. no one has sent me any errors messages so i cannot assess it myself, or find a solution to a problem if one exists.

methinketh the naysayers doth protest too much :p

There are some technical issues that Pat wasn't aware of that I've been dealing with, and this change was aggravating an already serious technical problem we're having with our server


What issues have we got that keep Pat's new feature from being implemented? And more importantly if we are aware of these problems, what actions are being taken to correct them? I think these are important questions because the most unique thing the PDGA offers (other than the magazine) is the ratings system. If we lose our server because it goes down, what do we now have to offer to potential members?



I'm not sure it's productive to delve into the technical details publicly here and try to keep them separate from emotional or political issues. Suffice it to say that taking over and being responsible for pdga.com for the last five years has not been easy, and has taken a large time commitment on my part. If anyone cares about the technical details, and better yet, if you're a Linux and/or mysql administrator willing to help out the PDGA, let me know via PM.

-Theo

Sorry, I was refering to Theo's post that said you aggravated the problem, not caused it.

Sandals,
The message board ran slower the day you implemented that. Maybe it was just a coincidence. I couldn't tell you for sure since it was only up for a little less than a day.

It continued to run slow even after the removal.

Its been running slow since the last crash.

Sandals,
The message board ran slower the day you implemented that. Maybe it was just a coincidence. I couldn't tell you for sure since it was only up for a little less than a day.

Berserker, i'm cetainly not gonna challenge your assertion. i noticed it was slow when i go to the office in the morning. i frequently have message board slowness for random 15 minute intervals during the day. i also noticed it was back to normal speeds 15 minutes later. so there is absolutely no way to infer a causal relationship between the ratings/rankings code and the slowness, since the slowness happens with some regularity, the slowness disappears as mysteriously as it appears, and the slowness behaved exactly in its usual manner on monday morning, even before i took out the code. so who knows for sure?

in the spirit of openness, i will say that some errors that occured on sunday night were my fault because i had not tested for players with pdganumbers who did not have any rating at all. that blew out the routine for calculating the rating. i fixed taht for the message board page on sunday night. however, i did not fix it for the player statistics page until later, so the errors Theo saw may have been from people using the players stats page. i havent been provided the error messages, so i cannot render an opinion or propose a solution at this point.

If it turns out the rank/ratings info was not the cause of any such website trouble -- would that mean we could get that info back to the side where it belongs? Or were there other deal-breakers making this a non-issue?

Also, why is that silly Reg'ed date over there? couldn't we replace that with some more useful info? :p

I would vote against anything other than a person's name and maybe PDGA number in addition to their avatar beside posts. And hope that a place where each member can have much more information posted could be developed. I will also fight against overall rankings as useless with hopes a better version could be developed relevant to a member's class (Am/Pro), gender, age range, divisional, or regional groupings with options to sort and filter accordingly.

chuck, just remember its one member, one vote (or should be)

you cannot credibly argue rankings are uselessgiven the overwhelming acceptance of them in the short period they were available. you may have a better algorithm, whatever, but rankings DO HAVE MEANING.

I also think that rankings are fairly meaningless for the majority of players. For the top 500 Pros and Adv players maybe, but for the over 40 crowd, knowing where I rank among all golfers is pretty useless. Even knowing where I rank among all Amateurs is not very useful. I'd imagine that it's even less enlightening for the Am Women.

as a soon to be 44 year old, I couldn't disagree more. Knowing where i rank (and seeing it advertised beside my posts) is a source of motivation to practice and get better and let's me know in a rough way where i fall amongst a pool of all competitive disc golfers across divisions. I think it would be cool to see where Juliana and Des rank too. At 946 i was in the top 20% if my calculations were right and from there it's a steep slope so 960+ rated players like them are probably top 10 percent?

it would be cool to see where Anika Sorenstam (sp?) ranks among top men in the PGA -- but i don't think their ratings system is as nice as ours (then again i am pretty much clueless about ball golf) :p

Did I say I was against rankings? No, just that overall rankings based on ratings are meaningless. It's as meaningless as having prizes given out based on overall points earned in a year rather than by divisions the way that it's done. In fact, separate rankings by rating for the same pools of people that are currently ranked by points would likely be more useful since points are rewarded more for participation than skill. I think it's great that rewards are given out for participation via points. But it certainly doesn't correlate with skill as much as ratings, that's all.

Pat, it's not the vote that matters as much as your ability to persuade those that make the decisions. Posters may already provide additional info about themselves via the signature line, including ratings of other players which has been done. The PDGA shouldn't choose to display your personal info in a place where it isn't necessary or relevant and drags system performance. I do think that displaying a person's function related to the PDGA would be useful such as BOD, Staff, Committee, etc. That would be relevant to their credibility as a poster on some topics which the average member or nonmember might not know. Certainly it's more valid than a rating or ranking.

Having that ability to include info in the sig line doesn't do much good if we don't get around to providing those additional info nuggets in their member area where they belong. I've been lobbying for that for a while now.

I would like to know where I rank among old men that only play golf in tournaments. :D

I would like to know where I rank among old men that only play golf in tournaments. :D



I'd like to know what division the oldest PDGA member rated over 1000 qualifies for -- is it GrandMaster? (Voakes, Greenwell) I want to know how many more years i need to wait before giving up on being a 1000 rated palyer. Hopefully some guys older than i will keep playing young and leading the way :D

I am over forty and ranking seems pretty cool to me. It's motivation.

However, I see no need to have it below our name. A more meaningful measure would obviously be the wonderlic test. I say to post on the board, the PDGA should administer the wonderlic test and post our scores below our usernames. To make each of us feel better about ourself, we could opt out of displaying the number and replace it with a name of our favorite football player, or Hooters girl with a comparable score. :p

Chuck, what is wrong with a rating ranking? Seems like the best measure available.

ps. just to cover all the important topics of the day in one post. My test score is on par with Terry Bradshaw and Brianna from the lakeline location, also known as Ms. August Hooters. I choose to display Brianna as I feel it will command more respect around here.

The overall ranking has no relevance. Why would you care to know that your house is the 1275th farthest from 1st & Main? Juliana could care less about ratings of the other male players near her rating unless she has a personal rivalry because she plays him for fun. But she does care about the women rated near her. Rankings should first be about the group of players who you might sometime compete against, and second those who you actually compete against, This is what the World Rankings will do when they're published next week or so following the Summit.

Ratings are essentially against the course. Rankings should involve actual competition against other competitors, not just some indirect comparison thru ratings. Ratings already do that. Rankings should have some other element in the way that rankings are done for the NT, local leagues or a series.

chuck with all due respect, you are either diverting the issue or just dont get it

"The PDGA shouldn't choose to display your personal info in a place where it isn't necessary or relevant and drags system performance."

its not really "personal"
it is "relevant", at least to many
it does not (or does not need to) "drag system performance"

i'm ok with opt-out/in. but to believe what you said and how you presented it makes you appear incredibly biased and/or close-minded.

ratings DONT do that. you tell me how my 936 stacks up in the world. tell me how many players i will pass if i can get to 945. ratings do not do that rating-ranking does.

again,. you have a different definition of ranking, and your is perfectly valid. but it doesnt apply to anyone but the very top players.

ratings-based rankings are cool in the opinion of a lot of members. there's nothing wrong with that being the case.

I'll be very clear then. I don't believe there's any reason for displaying personal information except where needed on this site. Just because you or others want it by the avatars on every post doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, especially if the info is available elsewhere. The BOD may be discussing these types of things right now based on the Summit agenda.

I'll fight to persuade those in policy positions just like anyone else is welcome to do as a member, although I don't expect any fight. There are members touchy with the amount of personal information already displayed on the site. For example, there's no reason others should know your rating unless you wish to reveal it. All TDs need to know is what the minimum division is that you qualify for. The general policy bias is to display no more than necessary. I'd like to see names and PDGA positions by the avatars but that hasn't happened. That seems more useful than anything else as a first step. At least names are available now that it's a members only site.

OK, let's put overall rankings based on ratings next the overall rankings based on points, oh and another one, your rank in terms of how far you're located from PDGA HQ... on the page of useless information.

Players will know how many players are ahead of them overall by looking at the number of players in each 10-pt rating range on the graph (which Pat did). That's a little more useful and visually appealing.

Rating rankings were cool by me, and they would have been cool by me even if they were Chuck's idea and not Pat's! I can deal with the fact that I'm only as good as I am. I was finding some motivation in trying to break into the top 2000, for the brief moment that the Ratings Ranking existed.

I'm sure Chuck's ranking system will be cool in a couple of weeks. Whoever it was who pointed out that percentiles expressed as a three digit number would be cool had a point too.

I think people who play disc golf with a competitive motivation are going to find all kinds of rating and ranking systems to be cool, no matter whether they are rated 846 or 946. And people who make up ranking systems are going to be competitive about which ranking system is best!

Why don't we create a third entity, called the DGCS, and use all the rating systems together in a formula and use them to decide our national champion!

Just put the info out there somewhere & the playa's can decide if they want to show it in there sig. :cool:

and maybe a player can opt out of even calculating his rating and get a reduced membership rate! after all, if he doesnt want it displayed then he might not want it to be part of an aggregate total, right? that is just as sensible.

then we could even prorate Chuck's "stipend". now that would save some money - how cool would that be!

equating a ranking to distance from HQ is absurd.

whatever happened to real leadership???

I don't have the technical skills and have laid out a proposal. Not sure what else is needed. So, in my best Tom Sawyer leadership style, I say, "Pat, look how much fun it would be to do those things!"

lay the formulas on me, bro, i'd be happy to take a crack at your player-v-player ranking system.

(the percentile one is super easy, so i am assuming you are not referring to that one)

Is it possible to rank those players in the same data set by ratings as those used for points rankings? I suggested that before but I'm not sure how organized our points rankings are. For example, can all Advanced men with points in 2005 be ranked by ratings rather than points? They'd have to earn at least one point in 2005 to be included in the ranking. Then, taking it further, could all men in the age bracket for Advanced Masters who earned a point in 2005 be ranked by ratings?

Both of these suggested groups would still include older players. Someone who's a Gm would show up with a ranking in Advanced, Adv Master and Adv GM.

Vote for Pat "sandalman" Brenner for Oversight Director



Pat how are you ever going to fit in with the leadership on this 'ratings and/or rankings beside our posts' issue unless you
stop making sense? :p /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

For example, can all Advanced men with points in 2005 be ranked by ratings rather than points?

whoa, isnt that what i was doing, with the exception of the division filter? it is possible, but more complexe, because instead of just checking a single table that contains the pdganum and most current rating, we'd have to scan the tournament table(s) for the pdganum, check to see what divisions the player was in, and sort/rank accordingly. now you ARE talking a potentially serious drain, unless it was pre-calced and then looked up.... but who wants to build another cumbersome update process that canot handle realtime data?


Then, taking it further, could all men in the age bracket for Advanced Masters who earned a point in 2005 be ranked by ratings?

Both of these suggested groups would still include older players. Someone who's a Gm would show up with a ranking in Advanced, Adv Master and Adv GM.

yes, but see above, squared.

and besides, while i find it interesting where i fit into a gender-rating protected player subset, but i REALLY want to know where my rating puts me against ALL players.

dont worry rob, i have my position on the 2MR to fall back on :D

The sort and selects by gender, age, state and/or division I proposed are the number one request over the years when people write me about the ratings. All we have right now is four groups: all men pros, all men ams, all women ams and all women pros. Even if you did rankings for those four groups it would be better than an overall rank. But members really want to know where they rank among their peers. There's no need for a dynamic lookup when the ratings are updated just five times per year. One shot and that update is good for another 2-3 months.

i dont doubt your assertions, but i' be interested in hearing directly from the members how they would like to compare themselves. i understand the perils of generalizing from the specific, but i dont care much where i stand in my gender/age protected group. like i said before, i wanna know where i am in the world. i suspect so do a lot of others. i also suspect that all of the above could be provided.

In a perfect world it would be nice to see how I rank as far as ratings as compared to the players i would actually play against. Maybe it need not go further in depth then All male ams, all female ams, all female pros and all male pros. Probably overkill to do each division especially since people bounce all over, i guess this could apply to Age protected divisions also. But, I am thinking that if i were of masters age and played MPO or MA1 I would still like to know what I rank within my age range though

In short: they are all pretty cool stats to have and I am glad you guys are working on ways to generate those stats (no matter how in-depth).

ok, that sounds like a vote for all the different major permutations.

here's the deal - you can have world rankings in about 5 minutes. the total code took about 3 hours, and when i was told to remove it i merely commented it out so it wouldnt run.

to do all the division/age/ stuff would take at least 16-24 hours of programming and the code would have higher maintenance requirements. (the original rankings have zero maintenance cost/requirement)

i do Level of Effort(LOEs) estimates for IT projects for a living, and then assist an enterprise level steering committee decide which project are most valuable, based on LOE required and the value returned.

in this case i would recommend we do the easy rankings immediately, and follow up later with the more detailed rankings as other higher priority/higher value projects are completed and move out of the way.

i would also likely recommend that we do the percentile ranking immediately, as it would take less than 2 hours to accomplish. actually it would take about 5-10 minutes to code and the rest to do the testing.

Kinda.... I would also want to know where i stood against all players. Like I said, in a perfect world I would like to see it all but if that is too much to do then a ratings ranking amungst all players only would still be cool.

Part of doing any kind of rankings is for the calculations to make sense and be useful. It's our responsibility to not to produce misleading values. The overall ranking has little meaning no matter how easy it is to produce. Once a few new PDGA members renew or join, your ranking can be affected without you doing anything. Other than corrections, that doesn't happen with your rating. It doesn't change unless you play.

Granted, your ranking within your gender and age bracket could also change when new members join or renew. That's why percentiles are much more meaningful in an organization which has yoyoing dynamic membership numbers. We were just at 9500 members end of 2005. Now we're at just under 6000 until renewals and new members catch up. Rankings will jump around without any play. Percentiles should remain relatively stable thru this annual cycle such that changes would be primarily due to the player's skill and not the membership changes.

Regardless Pat, if you're willing, I think we need to get you on the Ratings Committee Yahoo group where your comments and estimated volunteer efforts can be discussed. I'm the one who will have to respond to ranking questions in addition to ratings questions I already field. With rankings hopping all over the place, I'm not looking forward to the mail after the first update cycle. One of my most common emails is asking why their rating changed. Whatever is planned, we should try to have some documentation available for download along with the other docs on the ratings info page.

ok, that sounds like a vote for all the different major permutations.

here's the deal - you can have world rankings in about 5 minutes. the total code took about 3 hours, and when i was told to remove it i merely commented it out so it wouldnt run.

to do all the division/age/ stuff would take at least 16-24 hours of programming and the code would have higher maintenance requirements. (the original rankings have zero maintenance cost/requirement)

i do Level of Effort(LOEs) estimates for IT projects for a living, and then assist an enterprise level steering committee decide which project are most valuable, based on LOE required and the value returned.

in this case i would recommend we do the easy rankings immediately, and follow up later with the more detailed rankings as other higher priority/higher value projects are completed and move out of the way.

i would also likely recommend that we do the percentile ranking immediately, as it would take less than 2 hours to accomplish. actually it would take about 5-10 minutes to code and the rest to do the testing.



it'd be great to see you do just that. downstream the rankings can be tweaked as deemed appropriate, but for now they are meaningful and desirable. Chuck, is it that you want your fingerprints on it and not Pat's? :confused:

If it's a PDGA function involving ratings, it goes thru the Ratings Committee comprised of several people. Nothing sinister about it. The proposed World Rankings has gone thru that Committee and also the BOD tomorrow morning.

If it's a PDGA function involving ratings, it goes thru the Ratings Committee comprised of several people. Nothing sinister about it. The proposed World Rankings has gone thru that Committee and also the BOD tomorrow morning.



I wasn't suggesting anything sinister, just inquiring if that's why Pat's work was vetoed rather than rubber stamped.

If I remember correctly this World Ranking thing.....its for Pros only? Isnt that segregation? I mean we ALL pay for this right?

The organization is big enough that few if any things that involves members are done without more than one person being involved, even if they're just sounding boards for ideas. As simple as the programming might have been for the overall rankings, you saw the fallout from not going thru the few channels we have. It's not a bureauracy but we try to keep key people informed of proposed actions so they are prepared to respond to member issues and questions that may arise.

If I remember correctly this World Ranking thing.....its for Pros only? Isnt that segregation? I mean we ALL pay for this right?



No one's paying for it. And it's open to all men who reach 1000 rating and women who reach 900. Equal opportunity.

It's my opinion, but i think the reaction to Pat's work was a ridiculous over-reaction and handled poorly. I would have liked to have seen it left up with maybe an announcement that it was unofficial and would become more evolved as the appropriate Committees improved its user value.

As it is i feel like something i as a member liked and found meaningful has been taken away mainly for political reasons.

like i said, this is my opinion

As it is i feel like something i as a member liked and found meaningful has been taken away mainly for political reasons.




That's exactly why things are discussed behind the scenes before being done to avoid such problems. There are dozens of things that could have been done, we'd like to do, might be easy to do, but we haven't or can't do for a variety of reasons, usually lack of resources to do it, follow thru and/or maintain the initiative. A lot of these items aren't any secret but are published in meeting minutes, strategic plans and status reports in the DGWN.

Merely taking numbers that are already available to us and then doing the math for us and posting it in an easy to find way seems to me to be something there is absolutely no rational reason to iron out behind closed doors before getting it done. If Pat doesn't have leeway to do something as simple as that for the membership, why doesn't he? If and when some better ranking system can be published it can replace the info in question, till then -- what is the harm of not making us look at the chart and try to figure out where we or someone else falls?

i dont doubt your assertions, but i' be interested in hearing directly from the members how they would like to compare themselves. i understand the perils of generalizing from the specific, but i dont care much where i stand in my gender/age protected group. like i said before, i wanna know where i am in the world. i suspect so do a lot of others. i also suspect that all of the above could be provided.

I polled the members by temporal telepathy while they were sleeping. Among the players who play in age and gender protected divisions, 83% would like to see where they stack up against their peers and only 17% didn't care. Further analysis showed that the 17% were mostly pro masters. Lower rated players cared more about where they stand against their peers than higher rated players. Women cared more than men. :D

If I remember correctly this World Ranking thing.....its for Pros only? Isnt that segregation? I mean we ALL pay for this right?



No one's paying for it. And it's open to all men who reach 1000 rating and women who reach 900. Equal opportunity.

Riiiiight. All those 1000 rated amateurs will benefit from this equally with the 1000 rated pros. :p

Doing the World Rankings isn't an all or none scenario. We're starting at the top. There have always been plans to continue the process for other divisional groups just like several other things we'd like to do and continue to do as volunteers.

If I remember correctly this World Ranking thing.....its for Pros only? Isnt that segregation? I mean we ALL pay for this right?



No one's paying for it. And it's open to all men who reach 1000 rating and women who reach 900. Equal opportunity.

Riiiiight. All those 1000 rated amateurs will benefit from this equally with the 1000 rated pros. :p



"Professional" Disc Golf Assocation. :D My bias is showing, I better cover up!

We can certainly rank Ams in a "professional" manner. However, when the process for doing the World Rankings is explained, people will see why it won't work as well for Ams. The proposed ranking method we've discussed in the past few days will be more appropriate. One of the obvious issues with World Am rankings is how meaningful the top spots will be if players "bag" a little longer before turning Pro. Without a formal cap or Am to Pro transition policy, being the highest ranked Am doesn't have the same meaning as the highest ranked Pro.

world rankings start at the top and ratings-rankings cover everyone from day one. big deal, whats the problem with that? we can have our cake and eat it too - and provide something for ALL members, not just the VERY FEW that reach 1000.

as for your assertion that ratings/rankings are free, how do you reconcile that statement with the mention you made a while ago about the "stipend" or "honorarium" ( i forget which word you used) for doing the ratings system, and a similar system for the folks who process events? doesnt sound "free" to me.

one final question - how can the the position of a player's rating in the list of all players' ratings be meaningless??? there is a huge meaning in knowing that. and if 500 new members join and all of a sudden i drop 500 rankings because they all were better than me, then so what? my rating is the same, but my position in the world dropped. that is the truth, not something to hide.

We can certainly rank Ams in a "professional" manner.

ummmm... the whole point is that we DONT "rank" ams. we "rate" them.

FREE THE RANKINGS!!!

as for the Ratings Committee having control over all derivatives of the ratings, i am not convinced this is a good idea or makes sense. admit it or not, there is a beaurocracy there - there has to be because it is a committee (not an attack on the ratings committee, just a general observation of committees)

at this point i see no overwhelming or compelling reason for all ratings derivatives to be formulated and approved and constructed by the Ratings Committee. convince us that such should be the case.

ps - i have meetings all day today... y'all have fun... see you this evening :cool:

If it involves member benefits sanctioned by the PDGA then it goes thru some formal process. If the idea went straight to Theo or Hoeniger, I suspect it would be referred to the Ratings Committee, of which they are members, for review and comment . I am the contact person on the website for stats related questions. I'm pretty sure things won't happen in this area without me being notified so I can handle questions properly along with the staff who may also get the questions. We'd hate to have members not getting email responses from the PDGA, right? Seems like that was an issue somewhere else on this site. Whatever is done needs to be explained in a doc posted somewhere on here to reduce email questions.

being the highest ranked Am doesn't have the same meaning as the highest ranked Pro.



To whom?! Pros or AMS? Or the BOD? Seems to me it is an ALL or nothing issue. Why does the PDGA continue to embrace 30% of its members and let the other 70% try to catch up? While I understand Pros do and should have certain perks....this issue should not be one of them.

Lets see what the constitution says:

ARTICLE 2 PURPOSES

Section 1. To promote the sport of disc golf in ways which will enhance the enjoyment of the game for its members and
for the general public. To encourage good spirit and fellowship among all who play disc golf.

Maybe this should read:

ARTICLE 2 PURPOSES
Section 1. To promote the sport of disc golf in ways which will enhance the enjoyment of the game for its members and
for the general public. To encourage good spirit and fellowship among all who play disc golf <font color="red"> as long as your a 1000+ rated male or a 900+ rated woman.</font>

And:

Section 7. Privileges of Active membership over those of Supporting and Non-Active members are:
� To vote and hold office
� To receive a membership package and official PDGA communications
� To earn points in PDGA sanctioned events
� To obtain a player rating <font color="red">or world ranking as long as your a 1000+ rated male or 900+ rated female </font>
� To qualify for and participate in championship events
� To become Certified Officials and Tournament Directors
� To have comments to committees duly considered and acted upon
� All other privileges as may be established by the Board of Directors

Maybe an ammendmant to the constitution is in order, unless, again, you want to segregate us.....further.

transparency is healthy. can we use the Freedom of Information Act to get a court order to make public all of the private emails or PM's that were sent to and by the PDGA administration and its paid helpers regarding Pat's posting of the rankings? That way we can either be outraged or stand down from red alert :D(just kidding, i think)

okay, it's not an impeachable offense or anything like that -- but i do think an apology to Pat along with letting him put back up the ratings rankings info is in order :p Just when i find the perfect motivator to practice and get better -- it gets pulled out from under me ... :p

being the highest ranked Am doesn't have the same meaning as the highest ranked Pro.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



To whom?! Pros or AMS? Or the BOD?



You missed the point that our Ams aren't Ams in the conventional sense. Ams can arbitrarily determine how long they wait to move to pro if ever. This ranking process could delay it even longer. First a 985 hangs around an extra year so he can be the top ranked "Am" in the World on this list. Then, it's a 990, then it's several in the low 990s then eventually you'll have Ams with over 1000 ratings.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that if they were primarily playing for trophies like ball golf. But if they're playing for plastic cash, it's an arbitrary distinction between Ams and Pros that makes a mockery of any Am ranking system. If the PDGA ever develops a procedure for eliminating Am eligibility once a player achieves certain levels (rating, Am Worlds top 10s, etc.), then Am rankings make more sense and would have more credibility.

You can't complain about the PDGA bylaws when Roger and I are doing the World Rankings as volunteers, even if they approve them at the Summit meeting. Our small stipend is strictly for doing the work for each ratings update.

being the highest ranked Am doesn't have the same meaning as the highest ranked Pro.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



To whom?! Pros or AMS? Or the BOD?



You missed the point that our Ams aren't Ams in the conventional sense. Ams can arbitrarily determine how long they wait to move to pro if ever. This ranking process could delay it even longer. First a 985 hangs around an extra year so he can be the top ranked "Am" in the World on this list. Then, it's a 990, then it's several in the low 990s then eventually you'll have Ams with over 1000 ratings.

<font color="red">Apparently this already exists to some degree:


<table border="1"><tr></tr><tr><td> Amateur Men Player Ratings 1 thru 10 of 2751 | Next 50 >>
</td></tr><tr><td>Player Name PDGA# State Country Rating Division
</td></tr><tr><td>Joe Baumann 26135 MO USA 996 M Am
</td></tr><tr><td>Edward Palacios 14908 TX USA 983 M Am
</td></tr><tr><td>Scott Reek 12824 AE USA 982 M Am
</td></tr><tr><td>Steve Berger 28091 NV USA 982 M Am
</td></tr><tr><td>Brent Allison 28313 NC USA 982 M Am
</td></tr><tr><td>Steve Lonhart 20786 CA USA 981 M Am
</td></tr><tr><td>Brent Koontz 24900 IN USA 979 M Am
</td></tr><tr><td>Steve Martino 15013 FL USA 975 M Am
</td></tr><tr><td>Justin Celmer 22772 IL USA 975 M Am
</td></tr><tr><td>Mike Jolly 24034 WI USA 974 M Am
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

</font>

There's nothing inherently wrong with that if they were primarily playing for trophies like ball golf. But if they're playing for plastic cash, it's an arbitrary distinction between Ams and Pros that makes a mockery of any Am ranking system. If the PDGA ever develops a procedure for eliminating Am eligibility once a player achieves certain levels (rating, Am Worlds top 10s, etc.), then Am rankings make more sense and would have more credibility.


<font color="red"> As far as the plastic money is concerned, maybe someone long ago should have thought that through before it became the norm. Still no reason to treat AM's any different than the rest of the membership base. If were considered to be 'plastic paid Pros'then youve made my point even more....were Pros too! But of course that is another argument, for some other thread. ;)



Now if your speaking that its to hard to pull off effectively, well then, I guess that falls back on you folks to make sure it works for ALL divisions, not just the afore-mentioned group of players.

</font>

You can't complain about the PDGA bylaws when Roger and I are doing the World Rankings as volunteers, even if they approve them at the Summit meeting. Our small stipend is strictly for doing the work for each ratings update.



<font color="red">Actually I can complain about something as erroneous as this. We 'Plastic Paid Pros' have the same right to be world ranked as, again, the previously mentioned groups of players. </font>

Actually I can complain about something as erroneous as this. We 'Plastic Paid Pros' have the same right to be world ranked as, again, the previously mentioned groups of players.



You can ask volunteers to do it but they also have the right to refuse. I really would like to do it but not until standards for players remaining in or leaving the Am track get determined. I won't support doing it under the current realm where it's self determined.

Your example players who are high rated is typical this time of the year. Some haven't played yet this year and you don't know yet if they might really be going pro or waiting for one last chance to score at Am Worlds.

Well as any good business would do......the volunteer help is controlled and utilized when and where it is needed. Volunteers, obviously the reason for the continued growth of this thread, do not run amuck doing what and where they want, right?!

How can it be self determined when we're, as you've made reference to, plastic paid pros, we're no different, right?

While you are correct about the typicality of players ratings this time of year, it only stands to reason lesser rated players will be better than they were last year, subsequently raising their rating, others will not. I can imagine that these variances can be tracked with last year's data sets. In addition to that, who knows who hasnt paid their dues this year in the AM division to boast the overall number of examples. If memory serves me correctly, at some point last year, in CA, there was a 1000+ rated AM. Offering a world ranking to 1000+ rated male players will not stop the 'bagging' that exists currently.

My question is.... How does Joe Baumann have a 996 rasting but has no events in his player info? Also Edward only has 1 event on his home course. There needs to be a minimun # of rounds to get a rating. Heck at the wintertime open Bryan Banta shot 1058 1047 1009 and that waverages to 1038 so he could join the pDGA and be the "best player in the world". The funny thing is that he lost by 7 in that event.

I just did some checking and all of the various junior, senior and regular amateur rankings for golf include only players competing against each other several times in a series. That was my point earlier in the thread. If we had an Amateur series similar to the NT then rankings might make some sense (that idea is percolating BTW). As it is, few amateurs face other amateurs out of their areas more than a few times per year. The results from the BG Am event are almost as good as the Am Worlds, but it's just two events.

Given all the negative posts we've seen from pros over the years about how ratings are a waste of money [and for them they are] why waste more money ranking them? Top pros only care about two ratings/rankings issues: the rating that gets them a pass to USDGC and their weekend ranking at the end of any tournament when the money is being handed out.

If you could run a poll for 1000 rated pros asking, "Should we spend $X calculating rankings for 1000 rated pros or should we add $X to the pro worlds payout?" seriously, what do you think they would answer?

I'm contradicting my earlier post, in a way, but I've thought about it longer. A simple ranking system that just runs automatically off the existing ratings might be an an added value of membership that costs the PDGA almost nothing, but where is the value to anyone in ranking 1000+ rated pros? If Barry wins $40,000 this year and Kenny only wins $30,000, they know where they rank!

A simple ranking system that just runs automatically off the existing ratings might be an an added value of membership that costs the PDGA almost nothing, but where is the value to anyone in ranking 1000+ rated pros? If Barry wins $40,000 this year and Kenny only wins $30,000, they know where they rank!



you're making a little too much sense! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Pros pay more member fees. No one is paying for the rankings. The media asks what a pro's ranking is during interviews at big events. When they say 1015 or 935 (for women), they get a blank stare. No one is paying for the rankings. World Rankings provide an additional incentive for other countries and their players to affiliate with the PDGA since their top rated man and woman are included regardless of their rating. And their players may be more inclined to play in the World Championships. No one is paying for the rankings.

You can ask volunteers to do it but they also have the right to refuse.

or you could have a volunteer do it proactively and then demand that he remove it.

on another note, you're right we do not pay for rankings. rankings are available free. now if only we could display them :D

i like bruce's point about asking Pros where to spend the money - on ratings, rankings, stats, whatever, or on added Pro purse.

sounds like a good thing for the Oversight Director to encourage.

Rankings are not really available free, but there are no out-of-pocket costs. Defining the calcs, where they'll be displayed and getting committee agreement is needed. The docs need to be written, reviewed and posted. Then, someone will have to support it (me) by answering member email questions. At least others will be able to help by answering questions online.

If it's not apparent from this seemingly simple exercise, primary functions of the PDGA are information processing, management and communication. Doing this properly for members requires several steps.

I just did some checking and all of the various junior, senior and regular amateur rankings for golf include only players competing against each other several times in a series. That was my point earlier in the thread. If we had an Amateur series similar to the NT then rankings might make some sense (that idea is percolating BTW). As it is, few amateurs face other amateurs out of their areas more than a few times per year. The results from the BG Am event are almost as good as the Am Worlds, but it's just two events.



Ok well, how are you going to get the players from Europe to play the players from the US?!? According to the above I dont see where your going to be able to contrive a "World Ranking" when players from around the world dont play one another, but what, once a year (USDGC), or twice (Japan Open)?!

However, if this has already been figured out, then why cant the same be applied to AM's.

Or.....maybe this title is like winning the "World Series" where there really are no foreign countries playing in it? Of course that statement just leads to more questions......

If we ever have an Am series like the NT, then it would likely be called US or North American Rankings rather than World Rankings. But it could work that way.

if the "rankings" are gonna "rank" players who havent even played one another, but have shared opponents, then why would you need to call it anyrhing other than world rankings? are you saying that a 950 rating means something different in one part of the world than in another?

950 is 950 everywhere in terms of how well these players shoot versus the course ratings they played. But it's not the way rankings are typically done in sports. Rankings are done based on player results in a specific set of events where there's a reasonable amount of interaction among the pool of players being ranked. For example, handicaps don't appear to be used in ball golf rankings at any level for ams or pros, just performance in events.

The World Rankings being developed in the past several months is partly due to the discussion I had with Ken Climo at the Worlds last summer. He was upset that Jesper had passed him on the ratings. However, Jesper had never beaten him when they faced each other in events. I explained that Jesper had played against the courses a point or so better than he had during that time period.

While he understood the difference, we both agreed there should be a better or different way of doing the ranking calculations like ball golf and other sports where players can't avoid competing against their peers and pump up their handicap or rating without playing the Tiger's of their sport.

Ken had a good point and we've tried to emulate other ranking systems. But we don't yet have the number of events to completely take ratings out of the equation. The idea though is to start with the USDGC, Pro Worlds and EC/EO events and possibly the Japan Open and gradually add other events into the mix as they grow large enough to draw international participation.

so in other words, its OK with the Ratings Committee and it is good membership service for the PDGA to "rank" a select few, but it is not a good idea or good membership service to allow us to simply know how many people have better ratings when we are posting on the board without going click click click.

The World Rankings hasn't been approved but it's moving thru the process. There are a few technical issues that need to be addressed. International partners need to review the proposal. You're welcome to proceed with your suggestions like any other proposals in this arena.

Do you believe a sponsor can specify that their $200 contribution be applied to the Grandmaster Pro purse at a PDGA sanctioned event? Volunteers selectively contribute their time to member subgroups at all levels: a clinic only for juniors, a league only for women, cash only for Open, events only for Ams, World Rankings only for men with ratings over 999 and women over 899. Highly discriminating choices by definition and most are "blessed" by the PDGA at no cost to members.

no argument there. just becomes a problem when other good ideas are thwarted by those who believe their way is either better or the only way. there is no reason to not peacefully co-exist.

(i am prepared for the obligatory paragraph discounting the vailidity of a ratings-based world ranking now... go ahead, i can handle it :D)

no argument there. just becomes a problem when other good ideas are thwarted by those who believe their way is either better or the only way. there is no reason to not peacefully co-exist.

(i am prepared for the obligatory paragraph discounting the vailidity of a ratings-based world ranking now... go ahead, i can handle it :D)



Classic Pat. On one hand saying others should have an open mind and not say their way is the only way and then on the other that he doesn't intend to listen to what you have to say and that only his opinion is valid. LOL!

i will not be drawn into a personal confrontation with you, nick, on what has been so far a meaningful and on-topic discussion.

personal attacks and off-topic comments ARE, according to Rhett's policies, grounds for being banned.

lets keep this thread on topic.

Worth Repeating [emphasis added]:


i will not be drawn into a personal confrontation with you, nick , on what has been so far a meaningful and on-topic discussion.

personal attacks and off-topic comments ARE, according to Rhett's policies, grounds for being banned.

lets keep this thread on topic.



Bravo Pat. Have you been studying Tai Chi? :eek: :D

what i am most proud of is that i didnt even have to click click click to know that neon = nick.

i wonder what chuck's birth certificate really says "chuck"...

Of course, every poster's name could be a "nick"name so it's hard to be wrong. :)

Charles Glen Kennedy, March 4, 1953
(The only date that's also an inspiring motto)

Well if i dont see you online tomorrow then...Happy B-day!

Btw, since you are the "numbers guy".... could you plug that date into an excel spreadsheet and see if it is possible to calculate how old you are :)

I was talking with several folks and didn't know if there was anything special about being the same age as your birth year. Those kids turning 3 this year haven't had to survive as long as my age peers. :eek: I know about your Golden birthday when your age matches the date in the month.

My daughter turns 6 this year....come to think of it she turned 5 in 2005....i wonder what the odds of her turning 7 in 2007 are :confused:

In her case, let's hope she makes it to 00 again!

Yeah, I don't want to start anything either. Just thought that post was a gem.

I like the idea of PDGA Rankings, if worked out by the PDGA Ratings Committee, approved by the PDGA Board of Directors, and placed in a prioritized work list for our volunteers. It would be a fun feature to opt into.

Right, and you might have liked Pat taking numbers already available and crunching them for us and posting it -- except the PDGA powers that be have decided it was "bad" and so you of course are going to toe the party line? :p

i wonder how old i will be before i see the rankings numbers again based on overall rating?

The PDGA has only 1266 Pro Men + 107 Pro Women with ratings as of the end of last year. Is more than 3/4ths of the PDGA membership amateurs and not professional? Guess most of the money the PDGA takes in from the membership comes from the AM.s? Would the Competition Director have been okay with Pat posting overall rankings based on rating if Pat had separated the Pros and the Am.s? :confused:

i'm betting that you'll never see them on the message board again, or at least until chapman is not a BoD dude. even though they have an incredible value in that location.

what will happen is that it will go to the Ratings Committtee, then Chuck will come up with a complex formula for rating 1000+ players, and that will only be updated when ratings are updating, strengthening the inertia that retards any move toward realtime ratings updates.

then some day/year maybe somehow we can get to a realtime system - which makes total sense - but we must plan so much and replace systems in which people have vested interests before that will happen.

i'll be blunt - a significant percentage of current powers-that-be do not have a plan for the future - or perhaps better stated, their plan for the future is not up-to-date with what is technologically possible today... thisextends from officeprocedures through to the website itselfm and includes the murmurings you frequently hear on this forum regarding the backroom deals and various other practices. as a result the PDGA is not advancing as quickly as it could.

i still believe strongly in the PDGA and its leadership role in our sport. believing it could be better, and having some specific ideas about how to move it in that direction is not disloyal (something i have recently been accused of being), delusional, negative or confrontational. it is loyal, realistic, optimistic and respectful.

if you could only see what i do in my day job and how similar the PDGA problems are to those of other organizations in which i have worked... and how solvable things can be!

so to borrow from Jesse himself:

KEEP HOPE ALIVE!

This is exactly the kind of position I hope others take as long as they actually follow thru and run for a Board position. The PDGA needs a steady stream of people willing to step up with their ideas to help move the org forward. Technology is the area where we continue to need the help, and will need it even more as we move into the future. If members are totally satisfied, we'll have difficulty attracting volunteer leaders who feel they have ways to make things better.

Oh I'm gonna regret this:




so to borrow from Jesse himself:

KEEP HOPE ALIVE!



And from Rodney King....
�Why can�t we all just get along?�

So Chuck, I am assuming you received the curves and formulas?

Jerry

Yep. Glad you jogged my memory. I'll look at them in the morning. That a good time to talk?

happy birthday chuck! whats your new standard deviation? ;)

All right, who put that symbol by my avatar? Was that approved? :D

With getting some bionic heart parts on Monday, I won't know which way I'm deviating until probably the June ratings update.

well good luck on monday! those new parts oughta add at least 50' to your drives. at least they're not extensions, so they are within the rules :eek:

i'm betting that you'll never see them on the message board again, or at least until chapman is not a BoD dude. even though they have an incredible value in that location.



Really all you need is the go-ahead to do the programming to make the displaying of that info voluntary.

That's really the crux of the issue. If users can set in their display preferences whether they want their PDGA rating, rating rank, etc. displayed (just like we currently do Geographic Location) then this whole debate is moot.

Seems like a no-brainer solution that would have avoided all this ill will.

making it optional is a lot more work than simply displaying it, since its not part of the standard message board code. so its a lot harder to justify spending the time, especially while other important projects are waiting in the wings.

plus theres always the issue of whether or not the ratings committee would allow it to be posted, optional or not... there seems to be a camp that says knowing where your rating ranks is meaningless, or misleading, or both, or worse.

making it optional is a lot more work than simply displaying it, since its not part of the standard message board code. so its a lot harder to justify spending the time, especially while other important projects are waiting in the wings.

plus theres always the issue of whether or not the ratings committee would allow it to be posted, optional or not... there seems to be a camp that says knowing where your rating ranks is meaningless, or misleading, or both, or worse.



There's also a camp that doesn't like unelected volunteers making ad hoc decisions about their personal information. There is a place and a time for the use of PDGA Ratings, a bored mess is not one of them.