New Classifier Percentages

[motosapiens]

55 minutes ago, HoMiE said:

Percentile based classification would not be good because as your user base grows, most people start out at the bottom and then they work up. So as the sport grows you would be doing more people injustice by giving them higher classification just due to more people joining the sport and the lie getting bigger. 

 

wait, wut?

[HoMiE]

1 minute ago, motosapiens said:

 

wait, wut?

If you base it on percentile, as you get more people into the system that is automatically grow the base which will shift the percentile, it will push more people above and below the curve. Since most shooters enter from the bottom of curve, it will basically push others into higher percentile just because base is growing. 

[motosapiens]

8 minutes ago, HoMiE said:

If you base it on percentile, as you get more people into the system that is automatically grow the base which will shift the percentile, it will push more people above and below the curve. Since most shooters enter from the bottom of curve, it will basically push others into higher percentile just because base is growing. 

 

unless reality actually happens, which is that most of the current shooters will be working and training and improving and posting higher and higher scores as time goes on. Over time, the general skill level will continue to rise. To maintain your percentile, you will have to continue to improve.

[HoMiE]

2 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

unless reality actually happens, which is that most of the current shooters will be working and training and improving and posting higher and higher scores as time goes on. Over time, the general skill level will continue to rise. To maintain your percentile, you will have to continue to improve.

The majority of shooters are in B and C class. 

 

The older I get I realize my limitations. Some shooters will never make it to higher classifications. 

 

[SCTaylor]

11 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

unless reality actually happens, which is that most of the current shooters will be working and training and improving and posting higher and higher scores as time goes on. Over time, the general skill level will continue to rise. To maintain your percentile, you will have to continue to improve.

 

I think we are almost in the pinnacle of training, information, and accessibility to the "Stars" of USPSA. Training will improve, but I doubt we will see another large skill builder like Dry Fire and the internet, at least in my lifetime.

 

Not to mention,  you give "most" shooters too much credit.  Look at your local club, social media, etc., the bulk of shooters are interested in followers, likes, and cool & shiny new toys.  Just the reality. 

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, HoMiE said:

The majority of shooters are in B and C class. 

 

The older I get I realize my limitations. Some shooters will never make it to higher classifications. 

 

Perhaps, but that doesn't stop everyone else. The scenario you posit is equivalent to saying that over time, the average classifier score (and therefore skill level) will go down. That is the opposite of what is actually occurring.

Edited July 10, 2018 by motosapiens

[HoMiE]

35 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

Perhaps, but that doesn't stop everyone else. The scenario you posit is equivalent to saying that over time, the average classifier score (and therefore skill level) will go down. That is the opposite of what is actually occurring.

What is occurring is due to not adjusting the HHF as the bar continued to rise. The bar was to low as to what was actually going on and there was no adjustment for PCC. 

 

Improvise. Adapt. Overcome. 

[ATLDave]

A percentile-based system would continuously adapt.  That's one of the main things it would do and one of the reasons it would be a superior system.

[malobukov]

9 hours ago, ATLDave said:

How did you pull the data?

Hit factors with R, HHFs by hand.

9 hours ago, ATLDave said:

Could we get just the frequency of scores plotted?  HF on horizontal axis, number/frequency of score on vertical axis?

I think histograms are harder to read than Q-Q plots:

[rowdyb]

to me, it doesn't look like even 99-11 was "blown out" according to the plotting

[malobukov]

3 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

to me, it doesn't look like even 99-11 was "blown out" according to the plotting

Those graphs are based on a sample. HQ has more data, maybe it was blown out there. But so far into the tail it's pretty much reading tea leaves.

[motosapiens]

5 hours ago, ATLDave said:

A percentile-based system would continuously adapt.  That's one of the main things it would do and one of the reasons it would be a superior system.

agreed. Anyone good at math would agree. Sadly, most people suck stale dogbathwater at math.

[ATLDave]

I think histograms are harder to read than Q-Q plots:

Thanks! That’s what I was curious about. That’s also similar to what I think HQ ought to provide publicly for all classifiers and all data/scores within some window of time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LeviSS]

I think the biggest improvement that could be made to the classification system would be to not allow classifier reshoots at all.  You never get to reshoot a stage, even for equipment failure, so why allow this for the classification?  So many people will shoot the classifier once at a realistic pace so they don't trash the match, then reshoot and hero or zero it.  Until the recent change, I've seen where people have had half a dozen or more reshoots just to get the score they think they deserve.  This scews the high hit factors to the guys who give it 200% and just get lucky.

 

You would still get hero or zero runs, but I think most people would be more discouraged to do it if it trashed your match.

Edited July 25, 2018 by LeviSS

[Steve RA]

I'm under the impression you do get to reshoot a stage if equipment failure occurs during the run, or, for instance, a target wasn't pasted or reset prior to your run.

[SCTaylor]

33 minutes ago, Steve RA said:

I'm under the impression you do get to reshoot a stage if equipment failure occurs during the run, or, for instance, a target wasn't pasted or reset prior to your run.

 

Yes but you don't get to reshoot a stage due to unhappiness with your score. That seems to have happened with classifiers.

[Racinready300ex]

1 hour ago, LeviSS said:

I think the biggest improvement that could be made to the classification system would be to not allow classifier reshoots at all.  You never get to reshoot a stage, even for equipment failure, so why allow this for the classification?  So many people will shoot the classifier once at a realistic pace so they don't trash the match, then reshoot and hero or zero it.  Until the recent change, I've seen where people have had half a dozen or more reshoots just to get the score they think they deserve.  This scews the high hit factors to the guys who give it 200% and just get lucky.

 

You would still get hero or zero runs, but I think most people would be more discouraged to do it if it trashed your match.

 

 

I know this happens, I've seen it once at a match. Maybe it's my area, but this problem seems blown out of proportion and probably doesn't really need to be fixed. It wouldn't bother me either way.

 

Edit to add. I'd love to see the numbers of people who reshoot several times, how many hook up and how many don't. If you're pushing beyond your skill level I don't think you'll hook up to often.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Racinready300ex

[LeviSS]

55 minutes ago, Steve RA said:

I'm under the impression you do get to reshoot a stage if equipment failure occurs during the run, or, for instance, a target wasn't pasted or reset prior to your run.

Yes, but I'm talking like a problem with your gun, not range equipment...I should have worded that better..  I would expect a reshoot under the two situations you listed.  I shoot at one club that allows reshoots and it doesn't matter the reason...you hand them $5 and reshoot.  I want to be classified appropriate to my on demand skill, so I don't do it.

Edited July 25, 2018 by LeviSS

[LeviSS]

8 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

 

I know this happens, I've seen it once at a match. Maybe it's my area, but this problem seems blown out of proportion and probably doesn't really need to be fixed. It wouldn't bother me either way.

I think it depends on your area.  Half the matches around allow reshoots if you pay them, no reason required.  The other half doesn't.  Two different states, two different mentalities I guess.

Edited July 25, 2018 by LeviSS

[Racinready300ex]

1 minute ago, LeviSS said:

I think it depends on your area.  Half the matches around allow reshoots if you pay them, no reason required.  The other half doesn't.  Two different states, two different mentalities I guess.

 

I still don't know that it really matters.  I'm sure there are just as many guys out there sandbagging the system too.

[HoMiE]

28 minutes ago, LeviSS said:

Yes, but I'm talking like a problem with your gun, not range equipment...I should have worded that better..  I would expect a reshoot under the two situations you listed.  I shoot at one club that allows reshoots and it doesn't matter the reason...you hand them $5 and reshoot.  I want to be classified appropriate to my on demand skill, so I don't do it.

That type of behavior should not be happening at clubs. 

 

A lot of clubs don’t read the BoD minutes and ROs don’t keep up on the rules. 

[LeviSS]

18 minutes ago, HoMiE said:

That type of behavior should not be happening at clubs. 

 

A lot of clubs don’t read the BoD minutes and ROs don’t keep up on the rules. 

One club in particular was allowing at least 6 reshoots.  I don't shoot there, but saw classifier scores posted when you do a member lookup.  They have since quit allowing that many, as far as I can tell, but there are at least 3 or 4 more clubs around that still allow one reshoot for anyone who wants to.

[LeviSS]

41 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I still don't know that it really matters.  I'm sure there are just as many guys out there sandbagging the system too.

You might be right...it might not matter.  Sandbaggers aren't influencing the hhf, though.  Maybe the hero or zero guys aren't either, but it kinda appears that way.

Edited July 25, 2018 by LeviSS

[malobukov]

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

I'd love to see the numbers of people who reshoot several times.

About 3% of classifiers recently shot in production have status code D (duplicate). Not all of those are reshoots, as duplicates can happen on different days at different clubs.

 

I don't think it's a problem. GMs have no incentive to reshoot classifiers trying to get into a higher class, and a C class shooter trying to make B is unlikely to set the new HHF record no matter how many times he reshoots.

[Racinready300ex]

44 minutes ago, LeviSS said:

You might be right...it might not matter.  Sandbaggers aren't influencing the hhf, though.  Maybe the hero or zero guys aren't either, but it kinda appears that way.

 

I haven't followed all 9 pages close enough. Which classifier's have we determined had the HHF increased by hero or zero? And are they now completely unreasonable for people to do?