qqwref
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 7,834
- Location
- a <script> tag near you
- WCA
- 2006GOTT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
I agree with Dene that the WCA menu wording could use improvement. Perhaps something like "Best Results" (for Records) and "All Results" (for Rankings). Also, from the home page, the Rankings menu should be called Rankings, because Competitions makes it seem like you will not find PBs or WRs there, just information about competitions.
I also agree with Tim Major that it would be cool to have a "times achieved in the last year" rank, both on a competitor's personal page, . Personally I never got much value out of the "Since <year>"/"Until <year>" rankings except to see how results evolved through time. It would be much more useful to have "Last <time period>" for a few values of time period. Perhaps 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years.
However, I still don't like the idea of an ELO-type overall ranking of the best active cubers. It's just not needed and will mainly just provide an arbitrary ranking that will push some people higher than they deserve and others lower based on the design of the ranking. Things like sum of ranks already do this (for instance, you can't get a good sum of single ranks if ignore footsolving and hard BLD events) and a new statistic would be the same, just with different people arbitrarily penalized or rewarded.
I also agree with Tim Major that it would be cool to have a "times achieved in the last year" rank, both on a competitor's personal page, . Personally I never got much value out of the "Since <year>"/"Until <year>" rankings except to see how results evolved through time. It would be much more useful to have "Last <time period>" for a few values of time period. Perhaps 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years.
However, I still don't like the idea of an ELO-type overall ranking of the best active cubers. It's just not needed and will mainly just provide an arbitrary ranking that will push some people higher than they deserve and others lower based on the design of the ranking. Things like sum of ranks already do this (for instance, you can't get a good sum of single ranks if ignore footsolving and hard BLD events) and a new statistic would be the same, just with different people arbitrarily penalized or rewarded.