Changes to the Weekly Competition website

Jacck said:
I saw ichcubegerne's impressive mean in FMC this week and wondered, which place he would be all-time and checked his "current personal records": only 666th? Even NicoFoot is only 657th and there are only 42 listed at all :eek:
Click to expand...
Wow, I had some old, frighteningly inefficient code doing that calculation, from before I was precalculating averages. I'm hoping I've fixed that now, and the code is also much more efficient. :-) Please let me know if you see any more problems.

There is still so much code that should really be cleaned up - it's a never-ending job.
 
xyzzy said:
Kinch score calculations for FMC is still broken: my 27 average two weeks ago should get me a score of 83.95, but it's still calculating the Kinch score based on singles.
Click to expand...
https://i.imgur.com/jEHbLYJ.png
Ew, this one is ugly to fix. The problem with having different formats in different years. I'll try to fix this eventually, but it may be a while - sorry!

The results posted on the individual competition threads are printed in blue, which is almost unreadable when using the dark theme. Maybe you (or pjk) could tweak the stylesheets so that the results use a lighter shade of blue on the dark theme?
Click to expand...
I'll talk to pjk about it. If not, maybe I can just pick a different color.
 
xyzzy said:
Kinch score calculations for FMC is still broken: my 27 average two weeks ago should get me a score of 83.95, but it's still calculating the Kinch score based on singles.
Click to expand...
Okay, so I've been looking at this, and it's kind of complicated - I'm not sure what the right way to fix this is. Any suggestions?

For "official" Kinch ranks, it looks like they use a calculation of mean of 3 vs. WR mean of 3 if the competitor being ranked has a mean of 3, but they use a calculation of single vs. WR single if the competitor being ranked doesn't have a mean of 3. That's straightforward enough to implement for overall Kinch ranks, if there's agreement that this is how it really should be done. But what should I do for an individual Kinch score? For recent weeks (where mean of 3 is possible), if someone doesn't get a successful mean of 3, should I calculate their Kinch score against their best single? Or should they just get 0 points for it because they didn't finish the mean? My inclination is to use the best single, but I could see arguments for giving a 0 to anyone who doesn't complete a mean of 3. Not sure what to do.

Edit: Oops - I just found this in old text from one of Daniel's earlier posts:
Averages or Singles for 3bld and FM (whichever is best for you)
Click to expand...
So apparently, even for Kinch ranks, I need to calculate both in each case, and use the best one. That seems a little weird and arbitrary to me (to single out just those two events), to be honest, but should I honor that? And should I do the same for Kinch scores for each week?
 
Last edited:
Mike Hughey said:
Edit: Oops - I just found this in old text from one of Daniel's earlier posts:

So apparently, even for Kinch ranks, I need to calculate both in each case, and use the best one. That seems a little weird and arbitrary to me (to single out just those two events), to be honest, but should I honor that? And should I do the same for Kinch scores for each week?
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, the reason for 3BLD is that competition formats are bo3, not mo3, and the reason for FMC was that many people simply didn't have the opportunity to go to a competition with a mean. I think the intention was to eventually change FMC to mean only.

Based on this I would say that here FMC should be mean only and BLD should be mean or single.
 
Keroma12 said:
Based on this I would say that here FMC should be mean only and BLD should be mean or single.
Click to expand...
Based on this, I completely agree that the Kinch score for the week for FMC should be mean only. But I'm not sure about BLD - should we not treat 3BLD the same as 2BLD, 4BLD, and 5BLD? (I guess the way you worded it, perhaps you were saying we should.) In other words, say that for all 4 of those events, we use either the mean or the best single - whichever one gives the best result.

And that still leaves answering the question for overall Kinch score/ranks for FMC. Does it make sense there to use single or mean, whichever gives the best result (just as Kinch does), since all the old competitions didn't have a mean? I'm thinking the answer to that is yes.
 
xyzzy said:
The results posted on the individual competition threads are printed in blue, which is almost unreadable when using the dark theme. Maybe you (or pjk) could tweak the stylesheets so that the results use a lighter shade of blue on the dark theme?
Click to expand...
It appears pjk has fixed this issue - let me know if you still find it a problem. Thanks, pjk!
 
Since you dont have the problem of so few comps with a FMC mean in the weekly comp, I think making kinch based on the mean is the best and most fair solution. For BLD I think that in general you should only value single for kinch, since it is the kind of result that gets valued by the wca. I think that kinch should value events according to the wca value and not something else.
 
ichcubegerne said:
Since you dont have the problem of so few comps with a FMC mean in the weekly comp, I think making kinch based on the mean is the best and most fair solution. For BLD I think that in general you should only value single for kinch, since it is the kind of result that gets valued by the wca. I think that kinch should value events according to the wca value and not something else.
Click to expand...
I like this idea overall. But as for overall Kinch scores (historically), I think I favor giving the best of single prior to 2019 or mean starting in 2019, so if you have a better Kinch score as calculated before we started doing averages, that counts, but if you have a better Kinch score as calculated with averages in 2019, that counts. Does that seem reasonable?
 
Mike Hughey said:
I like this idea overall. But as for overall Kinch scores (historically), I think I favor giving the best of single prior to 2019 or mean starting in 2019, so if you have a better Kinch score as calculated before we started doing averages, that counts, but if you have a better Kinch score as calculated with averages in 2019, that counts. Does that seem reasonable?
Click to expand...
You could also just value the mean, and only single, if the person has no mean^^
 
ichcubegerne said:
You could also just value the mean, and only single, if the person has no mean^^
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be another reasonable alternative. It does feel like a cleaner solution.

Edit: it turns out that this also makes this much easier for me to implement. If there are no objections, I'm planning to do it this way.
 
Last edited:
Mike Hughey said:
Which theme are you using? Are you using "Dark Theme (cream text)"? I'm pretty sure the one pjk fixed was Speed Solving Dark; Speed Solving Dark looks like this for me.
Click to expand...
Oh, I needed to force-reload the page to get it to use the updated stylesheet. Looks fixed to me now.

(… although the fix is pretty funny; using a selector on style="color: Blue" to make it white.)
 
Okay, I think I have now implemented the new approach to Kinch scores; please let me know when you see problems, and I'll try to fix them.

(Note I said "when", not "if"; I have no doubt that was a correct word choice.) :-o

One other interesting change I implemented - I changed it so that the Kinch scores for the weekly results are based on the site records up to that week, instead of the overall historical site records. So some people's weekly Kinch scores went way up for competitions that were many years ago.
 
For multi, it would be nice to still enter the number of cubes you're attempting and have it display those scrambles, even after clicking 'enter times manually' (in the weekly view tab, not the manual entry tab).

Also, for any event, if I am using the timer and I type ctrl-tab or anything like that to switch tabs/windows, it starts the timer. It's mildly annoying, but not important.
 
Keroma12 said:
For multi, it would be nice to still enter the number of cubes you're attempting and have it display those scrambles, even after clicking 'enter times manually' (in the weekly view tab, not the manual entry tab).

Also, for any event, if I am using the timer and I type ctrl-tab or anything like that to switch tabs/windows, it starts the timer. It's mildly annoying, but not important.
Click to expand...
I have attempted to fix both of these now. Multi still has a number of problems, but I think I have that much working. Please let me know if you see any problems with them.
 
asacuber said:
Can't see results :p
Click to expand...
Where can't you see them? Can you give me details? I seem to be able to see them everywhere, whether logged in or not, both mobile and laptop.

One thing you might try - hit refresh - I did modify the style sheet last night; maybe it didn't load properly for you somehow?
 
Try now; I discovered I was doing something that Google Chrome didn't like. I think I have that fixed now.

When I tried it in Google Chrome, it worked, but had a huge empty blue field that filled the page and you had to scroll down to see the results. That's what I fixed - it doesn't do that anymore. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AvGalen
2008: Changes to weekly competition
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
21,268
mazei
mazei
Davian
Changes to the WCA event list.
11 12 13
Replies
254
Views
16,182
MrCubert
MrCubert
bldcuber314
2026 Regulation Changes- 3BLD rounds changing to bo5, Dual Rounds
2
Replies
37
Views
6,297
BVCuber13
BVCuber13
Isaiah Scott
We need to make some major changes in this forum.
2
Replies
39
Views
4,072
Billabob
Billabob
unirox13
Edit* This forum is due for some changes.
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
10,570
Cuber Score
Cuber Score
Back
Top