Who is winning?

[Jadeslade]

Do you have iPads and nooks that work in the rain? Can you get nooks and iPads to work together? Can you guarantee me that the wi-fi and extenders are going to work? The paper was the same paper we have always used in USPSA. PracticScore is great when you use it at a club match. I know its "great" at big matches -but are those 3 gun or USPSA matches? Local MDs like it because it decreases their workload tremendously. It is not easy getting in and out of a squad fast on the stage in Practiscore and you really don't have time to actually verify your hits and penalties, because they need the iPad to run and score the next shooter. I think that until there are multiple repeaters and multiple iPads on each stage, and a copy is sent or transferred to the shooter's iPad, paper is better than electronic at matches the magnitude of Nationals, because it's easy to put a new label on a reshoot paper blank, the scores are added up by at least two RO's at the stage and checked in stats. The competitor has a copy in his bag. It is labor intensive in stats, but they were there and on it. Ken Nelson pushes Practiscore because he owns it, knows it intimately, and can trouble shoot it. That is not always the case at other matches. Very few ranges have repeaters, most competitors don't have iPads, and most matches aren't going to shell out for multiple iPads on each stage. When that happens, then electronic scoring will be more reliable. I did not hear one complaint about scoring at the Limited Match. Oh, Nooks suck, by the way.

[PPGMD]

As far as paper vs electronic, that was brought up at the USPSA Members meeting with Phil and a couple of the board members.

They (as in USPSA HQ) had issues with electronic scoring at a couple of other matches, so they went to paper for the Back to Back nationals. But apparently they beefed up the stats shack, so they had scores out 7 minutes after the last shot fired with only one error that didn't affect the score.

I've seen posts from Phil on Facebook saying he's had issues with PractiScore at matches. When asked for specific examples from myself and Ken Nelson he never provided them. All I can say is January 2016 can't get here soon enough.

He gave one example that I remember, the Multigun Nationals.

There was at least one other, but that was two days ago, and my brain is wiped out from shooting.

[RJH]

I have shot and worked level one and level two matches, with paper and practiscore, and I don't really care as a shooter which gets used. As an RO, there are things I like and dislike about both.

[euxx]

I'm not particularly biased for using paper vs. electronic at matches. But this sounds as it is coming from from someone who haven't tried to understand how PractiScore works.

Do you have iPads and nooks that work in the rain? Can you get nooks and iPads to work together? Can you guarantee me that the wi-fi and extenders are going to work? The paper was the same paper we have always used in USPSA. PracticScore is great when you use it at a club match. I know its "great" at big matches -but are those 3 gun or USPSA matches? Local MDs like it because it decreases their workload tremendously.

This is generally part of your match preparation. Pretty much the same like making sure you have enough pens, batteries, timers, target sticks, screws, etc. like you would be doing for any match.

If you assume that everything would work without trying or testing it... well, you will hit some surprises at a last minute. At that moment the obvious thing would be to blame folks who created PractiScore...

It is not easy getting in and out of a squad fast on the stage in Practiscore and you really don't have time to actually verify your hits and penalties, because they need the iPad to run and score the next shooter.

The last part is not true. Usually you have 1..3 minutes while stage is being reset and til the next shooter is starting. Normally that is more than enough to review anything.

I think that until there are multiple repeaters and multiple iPads on each stage, and a copy is sent or transferred to the shooter's iPad, paper is better than electronic at matches the magnitude of Nationals, because it's easy to put a new label on a reshoot paper blank, the scores are added up by at least two RO's at the stage and checked in stats. The competitor has a copy in his bag. It is labor intensive in stats, but they were there and on it.

If you really believe that number of ROs "adding up scores" is making any difference in regards to corectness, please tell us how Paul Hendrix managed to cause havoc for so long? The stats can only check what is entered on the paper and that they have entered it correctly, but in case of electronic scoring there isn't really anything to check after shooter accepted his scores.

Ken Nelson pushes Practiscore because he owns it, knows it intimately, and can trouble shoot it. That is not always the case at other matches. Very few ranges have repeaters, most competitors don't have iPads, and most matches aren't going to shell out for multiple iPads on each stage. When that happens, then electronic scoring will be more reliable. I did not hear one complaint about scoring at the Limited Match. Oh, Nooks suck, by the way.

The best part about PractiScore is that you don't need any WiFi to score stages. Besides, every other competitor or RO has a modern phone in his pocket which can work as a mobile WiFi hotspot, even if there is no cellular signal at the range. It isn't really a rocket science to use that as a backup WiFi when your range network is shoot down.

But generally it is all the same as with any new toy. When you buy a new Open or Limited gun, you do your research what works and what's not, develop new load, try it out at the range, do some practice before bringing it to a real match. So, why are you expecting PractiScore to work if you haven't put any effort to learn it?

[bret]

Nationals is not where you want people learning how to work a new toy.

Club level it is great, if you lose a shooters score or a,squads score club level, does it really matter?

Nationals is the Super Bowl.

[euxx]

Yes, the major match isn't the place to learn new system. However PractiScore isn't exactly new and the Frostproof range was well prepared for using it. They run US IPSC Nationals on it just weeks before this match.

PS: if the Nationals were the Super Bowl, they could afford to have not two, but 5 ipads on each stage...

Edited October 13, 2015 by euxx

[bret]

How do you give the paper copy to the competitor with practiscore?

How can the competitor verify his score is correct after the match with practiscore?

I am aware of how IPSC was run, I did the scoring for the squad I was on, doing it in practiscore, then putting the score on a sheet and getting it signed is a pain in the ass.

In practiscore if the score is not right, there is nothing you can do.

With paper copies like nationals I got a score sheet copy at each stage.

Both matches the scoring and match was run well from what I saw, I Shot both.

I don't know what happened behind the scenes but it looked like stats was run very well, I think Trent was in charge is why.

[Vlad]

This is nonsense. We live in the 21st century, we can figure out how to use electronics.

How do you give the paper copy to the competitor with practiscore?

You copy it the results from the nook to a piece of paper. This seems obvious to me.

How can the competitor verify his score is correct after the match with practiscore?

He reads the piece of paper from above?

I am aware of how IPSC was run, I did the scoring for the squad I was on, doing it in practiscore, then putting the score on a sheet and getting it signed is a pain in the ass.

So .. writing on paper once is different then writing on paper once? How was it more of a pain the ass?

In practiscore if the score is not right, there is nothing you can do.

So if it is wrong on paper how is that different?

With paper copies like nationals I got a score sheet copy at each stage.

Again, it can be written down in addition to being in a nook

The cold hard truth is that we trust computers with everything from banking to nuclear weapon launches, so at some point we need to stop using smoke signals.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Vlad

[MarkCO]

If you know how to use Practiscore with electronic backup, there is NOTHING better. It takes some education to figure it out though.

The final HF or total time can be written down, OR, once the "approve" button it pressed, the competitor can be sent a stage summary electronically.

In PS, if the score is wrong, how would it be anymore wrong than writing it down, especially if the competitor approves their score?

When electronic records are sent, you can get a complete record of your score, per target, same as a printed scoresheet.

Both can be run well, and efficiently, but to say paper is better than electronic ignore the benefits of electronic.

As an RM, when I see a score has been changed, I can figure out why and fix it immediately. With paper, I have seen blank scoresheets go missing and then the competitor has a copy that is not the same as stats. With electronic, I can see when a score was entered. With electronic backups and proper archiving, I can see both scores and positively figure out which one is right. I have been able to catch two cheaters with electronic scoring that I would not have been able to with paper scoring.

All the professional sports that are based on time use electronic scoring exclusively now.

[euxx]

How can the competitor verify his score is correct after the match with practiscore?

See post #42. In short - you are trying to directly apply assumptions and the process used with paper scoring to an electronic scoring. The thing is that these assumptions doesn't apply and process need to be different.

[Jadeslade]

Whatever. Nationals is not the same as USIPSC. Much more important for everybody. I use Practiscore almost all the time. It is a pain on stages, a pain in the rain, you don't have time to really check your scores if you want, and you don't get a copy of your stage score in real time. But it's better than paper at local. There is no actual way to dispute a score in Practscore. The real advantage is for the local match director's personal time uploading scores to the net and to USPSA HQ. The major matches that I know of this year where scoring was delayed were 3 Gun matches with Practiscore. And there was a problem with the program/ data entry. Nope don't need wifi to score a stage, just to transmit to stats guys so we can actually run aggregates to determine a match winner and to upload in real time. The transferring of scores from an iPad on a stage to the MD's or stats person's master iPad or laptop can be problematic.wifi is better. As far as using someone's phone as a hotspot- that is a nice thought. But not realistic or secure or going to happen. We all know how to use Practicescore, so you can quit worrying about that. But not everybody knows how to troubleshoot it when it goes wrong or an iPad goes on the blink, or when they stop transmitting, or freeze, or won't sync. I know Ken went out of his way to have repeaters and climbed a tower last year to place one of them because of range configuration. And he was the match director. So almost all the ROs had experience with that. But this year, the Match Director decided that paper was going to be used, probably based on feedback from ROs and shooters. It took us a few shooters to remember how to do the paper, and find out exactly what the stats guys wanted on the paper. We had running water, and electricity and indoor plumbing, so stop thinking we're like country bumpkins. And rocket science hasn't been rocket science since the Columbia blew up. There is no way to initial corrections on iPads or a place for rules notation, etc. I was fully prepared to RO this match with Practscore, but when we saw paper, it was all ok, cause being an RO is all about customer service. I would like geofences on the stage iPads so that we know when the squad is all there and we can get rolling. This is the fastest and bestest and least complained about scoring I have seen at a major match. I put that down to superb stats guys, very good, reliable stats runners and enough personnel to do it well and fast. It was really well planned and executed.

[euxx]

It is a pain on stages, a pain in the rain, you don't have time to really check your scores if you want, and you don't get a copy of your stage score in real time.

Huh? How is checking your scores different from paper scoring? In both cases you can get your paper copy.

But it's better than paper at local. There is no actual way to dispute a score in Practscore.

I heard that a lot, but what exactly you want to dispute after accepting your scores?

The real advantage is for the local match director's personal time uploading scores to the net and to USPSA HQ. The major matches that I know of this year where scoring was delayed were 3 Gun matches with Practiscore. And there was a problem with the program/ data entry.

If there was a problem, tell us about it. But we will need details, so it can be addressed one way ot the other for the future.

Nope don't need wifi to score a stage, just to transmit to stats guys so we can actually run aggregates to determine a match winner and to upload in real time. The transferring of scores from an iPad on a stage to the MD's or stats person's master iPad or laptop can be problematic.wifi is better. As far as using someone's phone as a hotspot- that is a nice thought. But not realistic or secure or going to happen.

The stats crew's personal hotspot won't be any less secure than using range wifi.

We all know how to use Practicescore, so you can quit worrying about that. But not everybody knows how to troubleshoot it when it goes wrong or an iPad goes on the blink, or when they stop transmitting, or freeze, or won't sync.

If your pen stopped working, what would you do? Or what would you do if your gun failed? If Ken is able to figure it out, it won't be that hard for you to do so. It may come as a surprise to you, but Ken is not a programmer and he isn't exactly spending his evenings to write code...

I know Ken went out of his way to have repeaters and climbed a tower last year to place one of them because of range configuration. And he was the match director. So almost all the ROs had experience with that. But this year, the Match Director decided that paper was going to be used, probably based on feedback from ROs and shooters.

I've heard that decision came from DNROI and not from the match director.

There is no way to initial corrections on iPads or a place for rules notation, etc...

Maybe not at the time of the match and not on ipad, but...

[Jadeslade]

The reason for backup up in paper is to check for data transcription errors. The reason for real time- as in when it was actually shot- copy to shooter in Practiscore is to check for data corruption errors. Vlad, you want us to write out on paper the electronic scoring. Hmm. The paperless workplace is a myth. So you want to give us HF as our copy when shooting? So if we check scores and the HF is too low- we get a reshoot? No rules in place for that. All that has changed from paper to Practiscore is that the data entry is done by ROs instead of by stats shack. Yuk. It is great for that for local. Because of labor intensity. But it is not any easier to actually physically use tablets, especially those dinky nooks where the stage has to scroll to a new page. IPads are way better, plus we can have stage music. Nooks suck. I don't think that for a major match, and Nationals is the major match, it makes a damn bit of difference, if you have enough personnel to run stats.

[MarkCO]

Electronic scoring eliminates transcription errors and electronic archives eliminate corruption errors.

[bret]

For the people complaining.

Were you there?

Did you work it?

if so thank you very much, scoring from a shooters stand point was excellent.

Did you shoot it?

If do did you have any problems?

I didn't, I think Trent and others did an awesome job.

[euxx]

...All that has changed from paper to Practiscore is that the data entry is done by ROs instead of by stats shack. Yuk...

So, it is not "Yuk" for ROs to enter data on paper? Because that is what happening there, way before stats shack will see it.

You seem to implying that ROs are making many errors when scoring electronically, but somehow they are making no mistakes when recording results on paper...

PS: if that may make you feel better, the Frostproof range is using android galaxy 4 devices, those are neither nooks, nor ipads.

[Vlad]

The reason for backup up in paper is to check for data transcription errors.

Examples please. What transcription? Most of the time I've seen the carbon copy stuff used, so one thing being written down is teh same on all sheets. Maybe I don't understand what your are saying.

The reason for real time- as in when it was actually shot- copy to shooter in Practiscore is to check for data corruption errors.

I thought it was for the shooter to have a copy?

Vlad, you want us to write out on paper the electronic scoring.

Incorrect, I really don't, but apparently some people can't live without it. I'm perfectly happy with an email or heck, I'll use my magic pocket box to take a screen shot of the scoring device score, which is like 2 button clicks for me, and I have a copy of the darn thing. The reality is that what exactly am I going to contest? It isn't as if the hand writing is illegible, if I accepted the score as entered it is done, unless someone edits it and there are logs of the edits.

Earlier you made some point on differentiating between 3gun and USPSA. Every major 3gun match I've shot worked just fine with electronic scoring only and copying down the final time for backup on a squad sheet. Yes yes, USPSA scoring is more complicated, just copy down the hit factor, same difference at the end of the day.

Hmm. The paperless workplace is a myth. So you want to give us HF as our copy when shooting? So if we check scores and the HF is too low- we get a reshoot? No rules in place for that. All that has changed from paper to Practiscore is that the data entry is done by ROs instead of by stats shack. Yuk. It is great for that for local. Because of labor intensity. But it is not any easier to actually physically use tablets, especially those dinky nooks where the stage has to scroll to a new page. IPads are way better, plus we can have stage music. Nooks suck. I don't think that for a major match, and Nationals is the major match, it makes a damn bit of difference, if you have enough personnel to run stats.

These type of arguments are really odd. You are saying that the old procedures of hammers, chisels and clay tablets can't be translated to the new way of printing press. Yep, you are correct, we need new procedures.

Reduce this to the root of the problem: Why do you have paper copies of the score? Because if someone fat fingers a COPY of those scores into an electronic device (which is what a laptop and EzWinScore is) when you are not watching them you can say spot the error. Why have that step at all? Check personally that the data is correctly entered into the device right then and there, and stop worrying about it. If you are afraid of a hardware failure, have a paper backup of the hit factor which you initial at the same time as pressing the save button after you visually verified that it was written down correctly. Take a picture with your phone to show your friends.

This isn't even remotely hard.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Vlad

[Jadeslade]

Euxx I can't give you confidential information. Maybe you should email the DNROI and get it straight from the horse's mouth. I never said I didn't like Practiscore, yes I know Ken is not a programmer per se, but he's a really smart guy and runs a lot of matches on Practiscore, and has become one of its prime advocates, if you want me to trouble shoot an electronic device in the rain or desert heat, forget it. None of us are going to do it. I know you've provided the programming for this, thank you. I used to program, used to project manage, used be on a bulletin board with PhiberOptik-ECHO, learned how to be a phracker-had to be able to really whistle well. I worked for chip designers in the summer at IBM. I get it. But I do neurosurgery now and I don't want to spend valuable time learning stuff I don't need to learn. I think we just used this experience to learn and are trying to pass on information we gathered. It is no easier using Practiscore and it can sometimes be more difficult. I'm not a Match Director or Rangemaster, so I suggest you send out an email to the major matches and ask them. Maybe you already have. And just to remind everybody, nooks suck.

[bret]

Euxx,

Did you shoot the Nationals?

Did you work it?

[euxx]

Euxx I can't give you confidential information. Maybe you should email the DNROI and get it straight from the horse's mouth.

Well, somehow you can post the reference to it here... Anyhow, I'll have to leave it to the horse to come to support channel. It's not like they don't know whom to contact.

Euxx,

Did you shoot the Nationals?

Did you work it?

bret, I suggest you read my previous responses. You will find your answer there.

[Jadeslade]

Mark, electronic scoring does eliminate transcription errors. It doesn't not eliminate incorrect, old, or corrupted data overlay at transfer time. Electronic archives do not eliminate corruption errors. Your archives or mine? In the cloud or on your server or laptop? Time is usually the protocol, but if there are two sets of data for same shooter, time may not be the protocol. You are probably right for most purposes in general in shooting. The A zone is actually a big place. I like Practscore! Hate nooks, galaxies are ok but iPads are way better. Plus you can have stage music. I did RO this match and I did stay at the Holiday Inn. The scoring was superb. All of it was well done. Vladimir if you think this isn't remotely hard, my hats off to you! I think it has taken a lot of work to get to this point for electronic scoring.

[bret]

Euxx

You are whiney little punk.

[Vlad]

Vladimir if you think this isn't remotely hard, my hats off to you! I think it has taken a lot of work to get to this point for electronic scoring.

I should be more clear, I don't think figuring out how to change the old procedures to new technology is hard. I'm well aware that there are growing pains, and broken versions of software and so on, but the way forward is to re-think our procedures in view of new technology not to keep on looking backwards. I know how hard is to run matches, and making sure everything is just right, that wasn't what I was referring to.

[Vlad]

Euxx

You are whiney little punk.

Thank you for elevating the tone of this conversation.

[bret]

Euxx

You are whiney little punk.

Thank you for elevating the tone of this conversation.

I pm him, we discuss it, I thought like rationale adults, he responds and blocks me, I say that is a punk.