USPSA Activity Reports (IOs)

[Glock27]

We would like to submit activity reports directly from PractiScore.

Activity/Classifier Report >Enter Club Name > Club Code> match level are straight forward. Preview > 3 Choices. 1. Email, 2. Open it, 3.Print. 2. Open it seems redundant as it is already open...

What email address do we use to submit activity reports to? How can we pay for them?

G27

[RadarTech]

You can email the report to yourself and then go to the website on uspsa with a PC and submit it via the club support page after you login as a user with the proper permissions.

There is also an app on the iPhone/iPad that would allow you to do it in a round about way....

I'll have to get that to you later though as I'm not home with my iPad.

[jester121]

Practiscore isn't set up for auto submit... yet. Supposedly it's in the works.

[RadarTech]

You can create the reports and email like I said above. But soon it will do it without any special work....

[Ken N.]

As stated above, generate the activity file. You can email it to yourself, or use the Dropbox app to share it. On the PC upload as club adminstrator on the USPSA site.

What's going to happen when automatic is you post results, and if you have the match tagged as USPSA Activity, their website will note it and setup an invoice for your club to pay online. Our initial part of that is done (helping USPSA decode PractiScore databases and providing an API for them to get and work with the files), and it's now in the hands of USPSA to implement. That is being done by a vounteer programmer, and he's also making activity calculations automatic and instant, as well as some other improvements too. So while this task is relatively simple, it's intertwined into somethig more complex. I don't know when it will be done, just that it is being worked on pretty diligently.

Ken N.

[jester121]

I get really tired of HQ relying on volunteers and the kindness of strangers for things like match scoring and results - the lifeblood of our sport. Why aren't we spending some money to really knock this stuff out fast, and do it right... with documentation, security testing, etc.

Instead we'll probably end up with a kludge that's already dated and has to be tweaked for the next two years. Who knows when we'll actually see the USPSA app, or the Practiscore competitor app, or when the volunteer programmer will finish his job (if ever).

I appreciate all the work that Ken and the gang have provided for free to develop Practiscore, but the tradeoff of having to wait for their time frame is annoying for an organization of this size. Beggars can't be choosers, and USPSA shouldn't be begging for a modern scoring system.

[wgnoyes]

....OMG.......

[RadarTech]

[e quote name=Ken N." post="2198241" timestamp="1404667303]As stated above, generate the activity file. You can email it to yourself, or use the Dropbox app to share it. On the PC upload as club adminstrator on the USPSA site.

What's going to happen when automatic is you post results, and if you have the match tagged as USPSA Activity, their website will note it and setup an invoice for your club to pay online. Our initial part of that is done (helping USPSA decode PractiScore databases and providing an API for them to get and work with the files), and it's now in the hands of USPSA to implement. That is being done by a vounteer programmer, and he's also making activity calculations automatic and instant, as well as some other improvements too. So while this task is relatively simple, it's intertwined into somethig more complex. I don't know when it will be done, just that it is being worked on pretty diligently.

Ken N.

Ken,

I found an app called iUploader.. Costs a couple bucks but it allows you to upload from the iPad..

It has been suggested on another thread, that it might be faster to just use practiscore to generate the file to go to uspsa.

With that file, we would no longer need to worry about ezwinscore or wait for the volunteer.....

Thoughts?

[Jim Norman]

Not been following this really close, but one word in this bothers me... AUTOMATIC. I want PS to generate the file WHEN I want it to and then not submit it until I tell it to. Maybe I am overly sensitive, but we generate preliminary results and allow until Wednesday for corrections. I would not want the file generated and especially would not want it sent until the scores became final.

[ZackJones]

Not been following this really close, but one word in this bothers me... AUTOMATIC. I want PS to generate the file WHEN I want it to and then not submit it until I tell it to. Maybe I am overly sensitive, but we generate preliminary results and allow until Wednesday for corrections. I would not want the file generated and especially would not want it sent until the scores became final.

For the steel challenge match upload file you have to generate it. You tap View Results -> Activity/Classifier Report -> Enter club name, Club ID and then select match tier -> Preview button and then you have the option to email it to yourself, etc.

[Tim/GA]

Exactly Jim, even EZ Winscore did not automatically upload my activity file. Back before Practiscore we did not get to post the results until I had gone to lunch with everyone, gone home and done my part. Then I would wait a day or 2 until everyone could check the scores in case of issues- in particular with Walkons. Updating the match scores is/was no big deal, changing the classifier scores after the fact is a pain. Thus the wait.

I do NOT want to ever have USPSA going to my preliminary scores that are posted to Practiscore and pull our activity fee or classifier scores. The shooters now expect me to have the scores up right away and understand that there may be slight changes after posting- but it lets them rub it in on the range and at lunch when they beat someone. I cannot undo that expectation!

[sperman]

I get really tired of HQ relying on volunteers and the kindness of strangers for things like match scoring and results - the lifeblood of our sport. Why aren't we spending some money to really knock this stuff out fast, and do it right... with documentation, security testing, etc.

Instead we'll probably end up with a kludge that's already dated and has to be tweaked for the next two years. Who knows when we'll actually see the USPSA app, or the Practiscore competitor app, or when the volunteer programmer will finish his job (if ever).

I appreciate all the work that Ken and the gang have provided for free to develop Practiscore, but the tradeoff of having to wait for their time frame is annoying for an organization of this size. Beggars can't be choosers, and USPSA shouldn't be begging for a modern scoring system.

A big plus 1. Our organization is big enough to pay for a modern scoring program and all that entails. I don't know why Kim decided "free" was the solution to this problem, but I strongly disagree. Get out the checkbook and do it right.

[jcwren]

I'm not sure you all appreciate what the development cost of such a project would be. There's no financial incentive for USPSA to spend the $$$ to provide such an application. It would be nothing but a flat-out expense, and a support nightmare. Seriously, think about it. If you were sitting in the USPSA financial seat, what's your incentive to spend between a minimum of $250K, and potentially as much as $1M to write a multi-platform scoring program. Where's the return? Is it going to bring that much money back into the organization? We've got EzWinScore, and it works. Does it it give you instant results? Yes, if you have a dedicated stats staff entering scores as they're delivered. Can you generate reports? Yes, and in fact, a number of reports are only available IN EzWinScore. Does it run on multiple platforms? Kinda, if you install virtual machine software, like Virtual Box (free).

So what exactly does rolling out a multi-platform scoring system give back for the money spent by USPSA? They already have a website that is (or can be) monetized. In fact, even allowing an alternative to EzWinScore is damaging a revenue stream. PractiScore is free because of the plans to monetize a different aspect of the PractiScore system. Ken & Company are sinking money into it because they believe the future revenue stream will recover the development costs.

And do you really believe that anything that was designed by USPSA would have any real input from actual users? Complain as you might, a lot of user feedback has gone into PractiScore.

Edited July 24, 2014 by jcwren

[jester121]

Whoa there Chris, I'm absolutely not saying that USPSA should go off in another direction and commission a separate scoring system from scratch. Oh, hell no. Never even meant to hint at that.

I'm saying they should be working like crazy to reach an arrangement with Niftybytes to inject some capital into the Practiscore project so there's an incentive to get things moving forward quickly and properly, and to completely eliminate the "but it's free!" or "but they're volunteers!" reflex response that these things tend to generate when non-technical people get seduced by noble offers of volunteers. Trust me, the last thing I want is the people at USPSA HQ involved in requirement docs or project plans for a development project. Practiscore has come a really long way in just a few years, thanks largely to people like yourself voluntarily pitching in, but it still has been under the careful guidance of software development professionals who have a business profit motive and know how it works. I think an investment from USPSA would go a long way toward pushing the project over the top and adding legitimacy to the entire system.

I'll not mourn the death of EZWin, however, because it's clunky old technology that should be easily replaced by a modern tool or tools.

[jcwren]

I think that could be workable. Although I have no say-so what-so-ever, before I felt really comfortable with the idea, I'd want to see what exactly we the members get out of the deal. I'd also want to see everything placed in an escrow so that USPSA retains rights to everything should something untowards happen. Questions would be thing like is this money buying development? First or second tier support? Education?

Unfortunately, one of the things we run into as we get into more complex systems is that it requires a different set of knowledge and skills. It's pretty easy for people to figure out scoring on paper, and entering scores into EZWS. It takes a little bit more skill (not much, but slightly more) to post activity reports, and produce reports for awards and such. If you start talking about using multiple computers running EZWS to score a large match, it can become downright nightmarish, and I'm not sure I'd try that myself (too many horror stories from Bill about what can go wrong there!).

With PractiScore, now you're talking about being able to deploy an application on to one or two platforms, networking, a little bit of knowledge about iOS and/or Android, and other odds and ends.

The most important skill, IMHO, is being able to first recognize you have a problem, and then being able to resolve it. I can't sync my iPad with the Android stage devices! Hmm, is that a network issue? An issue with the Android version of PractiScore? What's this error message mean, exactly? How do I fix it? CAN I fix it? Do I have paper backups in case I can't fix it? Did I miss the signs of something going wrong? Were there any signs?

As any system gets more complex, it takes a more specialized skill set, especially when things go wrong. While most people love the instant results that PractiScore can give you, it's frustrating the comparatively small number of people willing to score a stage. Sometimes we solve that by forcing it on someone, and watching over their shoulder. Their big fear is messing something up (which, of course, they potentially could). But hey, there's a bunch of ways to trash a stage, a match for a single shooter, or an entire match. Deciding to score your L2+ match after you've successfully scored your first small local match is a recipe for disaster.

So before PractiScore is fully accepted by the USPSA community, there has to be a certain quantity of people willing to teach others, support them, and get them comfortable with the ins and outs, what can go wrong, how to avoid those problems, etc.

Somehow, it seems what started out as a fairly concise reply has (again) turned into rambling. I picked a bad day to stop snorting N320.

[Jim Norman]

There are two things largely that Practiscore does and Stagescore and others did that EzWinScore did not and does not do.

One, We get legible score data that has only a single point for input error. The RO puts the score into the system and that is that. no illegible scrawls to be figured out later, no errors transposing numbers, no fat finger errors. The data is in, done, which gives us Number Two, Virtually instant scoring without the need for a stats staff to be doing DE chores instead of our enjoying the match. EzWinScore for those of us that have moved on to Practiscore provides only one thing, the Activity Report. I have no problem uploading our scores to Ez and creating this report, but it would be nice if it were more seamless. I Could see USPSA providing to NiftyBytes the required parameters to allow for the classification update and activity report to be generated. I see NO reason at all for USPSA to attempt to recreate Practiscore or a similar system, I have used at least three different electronic systems for scoring and even withthe issues that we sometimes experiance with PS it is by far the best one out there. That it not only scores USPSA, but Steel Challenge is a plus for USPSA, it also scores IDPA and 3Gun and allows for all sorts of scoring customization in the Time+ type of match. This makes it a boon to clubs, One set of say 10 devices will run every type of action sport there is. If each discipline developed their own we'd have to have cross training on set up and data entry as well as considerable additional costs to clubs.

[wgnoyes]

(Practiscore can already create the activity upload file.)

[Jim Norman]

(Practiscore can already create the activity upload file.)

But only in the IOs not Android version, correct?

[jcwren]

[snip]

One, We get legible score data that has only a single point for input error. The RO puts the score into the system and that is that. no illegible scrawls to be figured out later, no errors transposing numbers, no fat finger errors.

[snip]

I disagree. The problem now is that there is no effective way for a competitor to validate the scores that were entered. It's much more difficult for a competitor to review the scores on the device than on paper. First, there's pressure (overt or not) to get the next shooter up, since the last shooter can't review the scores until entry is complete. Second, they're usually always presented with the summary screen. If the competitor thinks he's scored 2-A on target number 6, rather than glancing at the score sheet before he signs it, it now becomes much more of an ordeal.

Handing the device to a competitor to review the scores is questionable. Unless an RO is riding herd 100% of the time, the competitor has an opportunity to "fix" their scores. Does it happen? I don't know. Has it happened? I don't know. If I'm using an iOS device with local scoring logs enabled, I can review for any edits. That doesn't exist in the Android version, and likely won't for some time.

I've seen plenty of times when scorers forget to save the last score of the last person on a stage. Luckily, back-up sheets have covered that for us.

In fact, for major matches, I've had discussions with several people where we've come to question if using PS is the best thing to do. When a score is committed to paper, it's generally pretty easy to tell if it's been tampered with. With PractiScore, there's a large degree of trust. While there is an "approve" button on the iOS version (maybe Android also, I can't recall offhand), it's not really the same as a signature. It does, in theory, mean that the competitor has looked at their scores. However, see paragraph #1. There's no check by experienced scoring staff. There's a limited version of checking for missing scoresheets, but it's not yet as good as what EzWinScore provides.

I think where PractiScore really shines is local matches. Now I don't have to spend 3 hours on a Sunday entering 600 scores, and dealing with the un-totaled columns and rows, poor handwriting, missing times, and the like. But at an L2+ match, where staff checks score sheets for completeness, legibility, the shooter gets a copy, the possibility of data entry errors, and everything else that goes on, it wouldn't bother me greatly if paper scoring were used for that. For L1 matches, I never want to see a scoresheet again.

The L1 and L2+ matches are different worlds, and for the L2+ matches, considering the amount of work we still have to do for a match, I'm not adverse to using traditional methods for that.

Edited July 24, 2014 by jcwren

[wgnoyes]

Chris, well said.

[jester121]

I seem to recall several conversation threads last year (I think Ken was involved) discussing ways for competitors to validate/approve their official score right at the stage. I don't think anything was really decided, but I have faith that some time in the next 3 years we'll have a technological solution that people are pretty happy with, and hopefully carbonless sheets will go the way of the dinosaur. Last year at club matches we used a one-page squad summary sheet as a paper backup while we got our feet wet with Practiscore, but since then everyone lost interest and we just use the Nooks. If someone runs into a problem they come get me, or they scribble scores on a sheet of paper and turn it in later. (We've never had competitors sign at our club matches)

Anyhow Chris, I agree with your earlier points about some of the details on a relationship between USPSA and Nifty (or whoever). I'd also add in -- the need for some effort to help with the standardization of hardware, a bit more formal than the goodwill and camaraderie of this forum (for example, I was thinking the other day what a PITA it would be if you got pissed off and deleted the SSI2EZW web utility, or it was broken). Having all these steps and (relatively) complicated procedures does hold things back.

[jcwren]

I've heard a number of ideas for accepting scores, from using QR codes for competitors that would be scanned at the stage to "sign off" at a stage, to an actual signature by drawing your name, to thumb printing, to local stage printers.

The problem is all these solutions (except local stage printers) require substantially more capable hardware than a NOOK, which translates to a higher cost, shorter battery life, and (most likely) a more complex user experience ("Here, hold your thumb here. No, rotate it more. Now hold still. Dang, it didn't get it. Here, try again...").

My favorite approach is a local stage printers. I've prototyped the idea below, using a $40 thermal printer, a BeagleBone Black Linux SBC, a USB WiFi adapter, and some custom software (it prints straight out of PractiScore, but only the Android version). They're quite viable, except it raises the technology bar. In some cases a stage printer needs to be it's own access point, other times it needs to be a network client. Maybe peer-to-peer WiFi (something I haven't played around with yet). If I hand you one of these, how do you configure it? Add cost with an on-board LCD? Spend hundreds of hours trying to replicate how a Chromecast is configured? Full custom hardware, or use COTS components? What's the lifetime of those components? How weatherproof does this need to be? Use a more expensive printer, like impact instead of thermal? (Requires ribbons be replaced). Is thermal fade tolerable? Should it be battery powered? Use a more expensive but lighter lithium-ion battery or more readily available standard form factor sealed-lead acid battery that's heavier? Technically, I'd need to get FCC certification for anything that's an intentional radiator (which WiFi is), or at the very least, a passive emissions scan ($1500). I'd love to field 12 of these at GA State, but my personal budget isn't that large, and there's a bit of labor involved in cutting the case and wiring. And if it's not fool-proof, then support becomes a nightmare.

I'll say what I've said many a-time again. The NOOKs are sub-part from a hardware standpoint, but so far, nothing else has been able to touch them for cost, size, battery life, sunlight readability, and durability. No camera, so QR code and print scanners are out. The slow refresh rate of the e-Ink makes on-screen signature most likely impossible (might have to try that and see what happens, though...). Limited memory, limited to Android 2.1 (4.4.4 is the current version), 800MHz processor, and now (grrrrrr) limited availability. I'd love nothing more than to design a custom tablet that meets our needs, but works better than these cheap Chinese garbage tablets.

Edited July 25, 2014 by jcwren

[ZackJones]

Chris, don't take this the wrong way but how is the printed summary from your stage printer any different than the summary we provided the shooters at Area 6 and AL Sectional? Unless you print the summary twice then you only have one copy. Who gets that one copy, the shooter or stats? I don't see any problem using the carbonless summary we use today.

I do agree with scoring tablets though. That's the one drawback to PractiScore. If the supply of NST's dries up then we'll have to switch over to iPads which come at a significant cost .

[jcwren]

Chris, don't take this the wrong way but how is the printed summary from your stage printer any different than the summary we provided the shooters at Area 6 and AL Sectional? Unless you print the summary twice then you only have one copy. Who gets that one copy, the shooter or stats? I don't see any problem using the carbonless summary we use today.

No manual transcription, which reduces errors. Faster (prints in about 1.5 seconds). Less expensive, long term (thermal printer paper is dirt cheap). Smaller paper (less waste). Can print as many copies as we need (some competitors don't care about their copies (which is A Bad Idea)). Reprints if necessary. Complete record of all printed sheets (time, stage, etc). No need for competitor labels to stick to score sheets.

Two-part forms aren't expensive, but it is about $150 for enough for a match. Most people put club logos and the year on them, so that makes re-using leftovers less viable. Labels are getting more expensive, and if a competitor loses enough of them, you have to reprint.

I'm not saying this is a perfect solution. It's an idea, with proof-of-concept. Rather than talking about doing things, I'm trying to implement them, test their viability. Maybe shooters would LOVE the little thermal strips. Or, maybe, they'd totally hate them. But the long term goal is to find a solution that's easy to use, cheap to implement, minimizes (or eliminates) errors, and hopefully adds a "cool" factor to the shooter experience (like getting scores instantly did, vs waiting a week for someone to get around to keying them in).

[Vlad]

I think we should use mud tablets. Once the score is scratched on them, we can have everyone take a picture with their camera, let them set in the Sun, and then have the stats folks read them back and add them with an abacus. This is has the additional advantage of allowing us to be ADA compliant for stats folks with weak eye sight, they can just feel the tablets.

Really the only issue is the availability of Nooks. Everything else has a solution. Ideally if USPSA wants to spend money it would be in contacting a hardware vendor and specing out a tablet that uses epaper AND bluetooth, order them in enough quantity to make the price viable, and then resell them to clubs. Heck you can have IDPA/USPSA/3GN/SASS/etc get together and split the costs.

Once you have bluetooth in the device you can just have the shooters pull a copy of their scores directly from the stage device, without having to worry about wifi on the range.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Vlad