ACM Motion - Electronic Results

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:16 pm

I plan to put forward an ACM motion so that slalom organisers must supply results in computerised format.

I hope this will help the various bib and ranking officers do there job more easily, allow Nick and others to process results more easily and allow for future developments in the sport in the coming years.

I am aware that many organisers probably do this already but this is just to make it a requirement. I think all slaloms are now run by computerised systems so it should not be too difficult. In most cases it should be simply sending the results as is or cut and pasting them into a spreadsheet and then sending that.

So as to keep things simple and allow for those volunteers who do not use computers I plan to make this in addition to the existing paper results sent for the moment.

I've purposely not said how, email is the obvious choice but there is no reason they can not be sent by other methods.

I would therefore propose the following.

Amendments

56.3 Prepare final results in computerised spreadsheet format and paper format showing.....

56.6 Send two paper copies and one computerised spreadsheet copy of the results....

56.9 Send one start list, one paper copy and one computerised spreadsheet copy of the results.....

56.10 Send the completed summary sheets, one paper copy and one computerised spreadsheet copy of the results to..... and one one paper copy and one computerised spreadsheet copy of the results to ....

Comments as usual please!

PS. Could someone point me in the right direction of how an ACM motion should be submitted as I've never done it.

Thanks
Duncan

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:40 pm

Re 56.6

Personally - there is no way that I need two paper copies, although I can't speak for the other ranking officers; I think it is a waste of paper. I have said this before. Unfortunately I'm not a member of the BCU so can't propose the rule change!

I would be delighted to receive the results in a spreadsheet format and would be happy not to have a paper copy at all. However, if there is no paper copy then the cards need to be clearly identified as a particular race when they arrive or checking them will be a pain.

Seedy Paddler · Post by **Seedy Paddler** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:32 pm

1/ I have always questioned why we need to send 2 copies of results to everybody. I am fairly sure that a lot end up in the bin. Not so bad if I use the copier at work but dashed expensive if I have to run off copies through a local copy-shop. I recall an event in the early '80s where the largest single expense was the Prontaprint bills for the start list and results. Thankfully I started working in an ofice shortly thereafter - if we had continued with that line the event would have been closed down as uneconomical far earlier.

2/ Electronic transfers are fine but you will need to specify a common format and what is to be transferred:

e.g. I use my laptop to run the event - relatively new and runs with Vista, if I default the file save - I cannot read the file on my desktop or work PC as they run on XP.

Normally transfers between systems/software should use a common format e.g. CSV, but you would need to get with Ranking Compilers and Organisers and find a best fit optimal solution.

Further (as an Event organiser) although I use a spreadsheet for the manipulation of the data, I transfer that to a word file for publication of results (including the hand calculation and insertion of points). Mainly because I have found it easier to set-up page formatting, widow/orphan controls, mixed text and tables,photographs and logos and printing controls within Word than various multiple sheet Excel files. So sending in the spreadsheets may not provide the compiler with the final results?

Then comes the issue of what happens when it is wrong? This debate seems to have developed from the thread on Fairnilee - now 3 pages long with a note that states the Results have errors but at no stage does anything advise what the error(s) actually is nor the changes required? I tend to issue the results to Compilers and Officers as a pdf file- you can read it but not change it. Should you find errors or mistakes it can come back to me for correction. Means the Event Organisers Results should be correct, if I have made a mistake I learn from it, I can re-issue to paddlers and sites with corrections.

For ACM changes I think we need to keep the event with the Organiser, issue to compilers/officers in pdf or paper formats. Any errors to be notified to the Organiser for correction and re-issue (to compiling officers) and formal publication with advice through common media (eg CanoeSlalom.co.uk).

davewaine · Post by **davewaine** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:43 pm

Electronic format is the way forward!
We should take a leaf from the Marathon racing system.
When I help run a Marathon event I download the paddlers details (Names, Clubs, Ranking etc) before hand, can easily manage all the entries on the day, have results displayed immediately each race finishes, get all the calculations performed AND send off the results electronicly. Why not for Slalom?

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:55 am

1. I'll amend my ACM motion to reduce paper (1 paper copy).

2. I'll amend it to mention CSV.

3. The point of this is that ranking officers need it in a format like this so that they can run their own checks via computer as well as human eye so sending a pdf just creates more work for them as they have to cut/paste/retype etc. I do not think we should restrict what they can do.

4. I agree with the point re feedback to organisers. Not sure where the responsibility for the final valid results lie and the canoe slalom web site is not currently an official source of results. Can I suggest you raise appropriate motions for these points.

Thanks for all the input.

Duncan

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:55 am

To submit a motion, you need to explain the change, and draft the changes to the rules.

This then needs to be discussed at a committee meeting of a 'voting club'. (or be able to be defended as though it had if your club is less formal and do not have meetings). If approved, then the motion has to be signed by two full BCU members as a correct record of this discussion.

The signed motion must tehn be sent to the secretary before the closing date. To be helpful, you may send electronic copies to Ken as secretary, and Jim Croft as administrator.

A voting club is one that is:
a) affiliated to the BCU
b) registered with the slalom committee (can do this now if you need to)
c) Either runs 1 or more ranking events at division 3 or above, or has three or more paddlers on the ranking list.

PM me if you want any more help

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:41 am

Updated Amendments

56.3 Prepare final results in a computerised format and paper format showing.....

56.6 Send one paper copy and one computerised (csv format) copy of the results....

56.9 Send one start list, one paper copy and one computerised (csv format) copy of the results.....

56.10 Send the completed summary sheets, one paper copy and one computerised (csv format) copy of the results to..... and one paper copy and one computerised (csv format) copy of the results to ....

Now to get it sent off!

Nick Penfold · Post by **Nick Penfold** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:37 pm

"I plan to put forward an ACM motion so that slalom organisers must supply results in computerised format."
They nearly all do so already, and you may be putting an obstruction in the way of someone trying to get a novice event together with limited resources.
Sorry guys, do any of you (bar Dee) know what's involved in compiling rankings from results? What are you really trying to achieve? What is the point of CSV files until we can load them to some sort of ranking system? And as I asked before, what reliable key do we have for such a load?
This proposal makes no sense at all unless it's part of a system which would involve common output formats, if not a common system, from all races and a system to make use of them. Until there is one I'll accept Excel, Word, text and PDF files and NOT CSVs
PS I don't need two paper copies, and I don't think anyone else does either. But getting one copy, with the cards, does keep the load on my printer and pocket down.

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:47 pm

Guess I'm wasting my time then.....never mind.

RussJohnson · Post by **RussJohnson** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:03 pm

duncan, get it sent of and sorted out, some people can be so down heartening about good ideas

John Sturgess · Post by **John Sturgess** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:05 pm

Duncan

I see Nick's point - and actually I would take it a bit further

The probable with partial reforms is that they tend to act as obstacles to doing a complete job later on

I know that this started out on the subject of how we can have a system that enables paddlers to know whether they are promoted before they go to their next event. And as Chairman of Jury I followed an earlier suggestion by doing that at West Tanfield - but I was only able to do so (a) because Nick had got all the previous results into the unofficial rankings by the Friday and (b) because I had calculated what the Fairnilee results should really have been. However paddlers were very grateful - as were organisers who knew who should and should not paddle in what Division on day 2!

And obviously this is very important for the paddlers

But there is a much bigger question. Each year we gather a vast range of information about our sport that we need in order to make sensible decisions. We know for every paddler their club, what races they do, how well they do, their address, and for junior paddlers their date of birth

If we could put all that information into usable form it would enable us to answer a lot of questions about our sport that currently get answered on the basis of guesswork or prejudice:

How many paddlers we recruit into the sport each year (and how many of those just go to one event and never re-appear)
How many of those paddlers we retain - i.e. they are still racing the next year - and the next - and what their average 'life' in the sport is
What factors influence the likelihood of new recruits becoming long-term participants (age at recruitment? speed of progression up the divisions? gender? club membership? What sort/size of club? where in the country they live?)
What makes paddlers drop out? (age? leaving home? not progressing? demotion?)
How the background and profile of paddlers who make GB Junior and Senior Teams differs from the average?

And if we had a system as sophisticated as the French system, it would enable us to answer the really interesting questions that come up:
Do paddlers get promoted too fast?
Is it easier than it used to be to get into Div 1?
Are paddlers who get promoted late in the season not as good as those promoted early-season, because the better paddlers have all already been promoted?

At the request of Mark Shaw I have looked at some of these questions 'manually' - and I can tell you it is VERY boring and VERY time-consuming - but the answers are certainly not ones that come naturally to most of those who vote at ACM's!

The minimum we need, I am told, is to handle race information through a data-base - whatever that is! But I think Duncan and Nick know ....

Why is all this necessary? Well, at a cynical level it would shorten ACM debates; but it might also make us look at things differently as a sport. All the debate I have heard about marketing at ACM's is about recruitment - and the answer is usually felt to be TV exposure. However according to the numbers I have crunched for Mark, if all Clubs retained paddlers as well as the ten Clubs in the country with the biggest junior sections, the sport would double in size within 4 years. However that is based on an analysis of one year's intake; I haven't yet had the time or the inclination to repeat the exercise.

And to think that people still believe that Tesco Club Cards are about rewarding loyalty! (the rewards are simply a very cheap way of bribing customers to provide an unbelievable amount of market research data)

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 9:20 pm

In a way, I think the sport missed a trick when the prem timing system was developed. It could so easily have included an automatic calculation of rankings. And since next year there is an intention for the timing team to time all div 1s as well this could have been extended to the div 1s.

There would probably still be a case for independant manual checking of penalties on the cards against penalties on the databse, but that aside could have simplified rankings for prem and div 1.

A similar software system could be developed for lower division ranking but how do we check the system is looking at the right paddler. This could be relatively easy for those pre-ranked at the start of the year. However, what about all those racing as bib 999. Some manual intervention will be required so there will always be some issues. This doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for the ideal but it is far from simple and there is a cost involved.

Possible to discuss all night and get nowhere - I think I'll go and pour a(nother) glass of wine.

Anne · Post by **Anne** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:52 am

One of the problems with slalom is we have a vast amount of people with bright ideas, some workable some perhaps not - however there are very few volunteers actually willing to put in the time and effort needed to make it possible to even consider the ideas, or those that do don't necessarily have the required skills!

PeterC · Post by **PeterC** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:00 pm

John Sturgess makes some interesting and valid points about tracking paddlers performance and activity.

For the last two years I have been doing just this for all the Scottish Paddlers, in a rudimentary fashion last year and more comprehensively in the last year from Prem, Div 1 and Div 2.

It show paddlers when they are getting close to promotion and indeed when they should be promoted. It does help that I know most of the paddlers in Scotland and let them know what I think their status is. This will be going on line as from next season on the SCA site. Paddlers will be able to see what is needed and who could get promoted at the next race they participate in and what score they actually need.

The biggest problem however seems to be Div 2 & 3 where competitions may come thick and fast, results are often slow to be published, parents often have no idea how to work out promotions and the paddlers do not have dedicated coaches tracking them and they may get promoted one weekend, not know and then compete again the following – exactly what caused trouble with the Fairnilee results. For Scotland at least I am going to also try and track Div 3 next year.

My biggest problem is identification. Paddlers do not have their bibs or forget them and compete with inappropriate bib numbers – these then have to be tracked manually. Unfortunately names are often spelt wrongly and clubs change therefore cannot be used for automated matching. Having the correct bib numbers in results would be hugely useful. Within the timing team there is effort to comply with this where the correct bib number is used on the card internally and results are correctly allocated and the card then shows separately what bib number they are paddling with for judging. It does amaze me that some, even at the end of the season, do not know their bib numbers!!!

What I think would be needed to help make this work would be:
- A requirement to send Nick Penfold electronic results by the Wednesday of the week following. He is very good at then publishing them.
- An emphasis on organisers checking that the correct bib number is on cards for the start lists as these are what feed the timing and ultimately results systems.

This would need a decision by the slalom committee to modify the rules for organisers slightly.

Nick already does a vast amount of work with the ranking lists he publishes however it does not (yet perhaps) let them know what they need to do to get promotion in a subsequent race.

Positive support for all paddlers will I would expect have a positive effect on retention which as John notes is a key desirable.

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:18 pm

- An emphasis on organisers checking that the correct bib number is on cards for the start lists as these are what feed the timing and ultimately results systems.

Sorry, but but unless the sport is going to invest in suitable systems and provide electronic lists of paddlers in a division to all organisors with systems that carry out the bulk of the checking. I think this is impractical. It is the responsibility of the paddler to check their own cards and get it right!

I get really cheesed off with those that send in their entry without a bib number as it takes time to read through all the names in the division to find the right one.