Jump to content


Photo

Classification changes -- HHF getting fixed?


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1 Michel Neaucheutte

Michel Neaucheutte

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 31 January 2017 - 10:33 AM

From the minutes:

 

  • The limit for "A" flags switches from 15% above your current class to 20%.
  • For a major to count as a classifier: 3 GMs finishing at 90% or higher in a division, plus at least 50 participants in the division (sorry, revo/L10/CO). (Currently it's just 3 GMs per division.)
  • Match bumps going automatic: finish 95%+ at Nationals = bump to GM, finish 5%+ above current class in a L2+ = bump to next class (subject to 3 GMs at 90%+ in the division and 50+ in the division).
  • Biannual review of classifier HHFs because, "in some cases there were no 100% scores, in others, there were 100% scores deep into the classes." I'm curious what the outliers are. I need to optimize my grandbagging so I can practice less.  I also wonder how the rollout of new HHF would impact existing classifications--will they adjust retroactively?

BOD adopted the changes, but I didn't see a time line for implementation.  I don't know if it depends on any IT stuff, and I assume the HHF review means a committee.

 

Looks like they talked about reshooting classifiers with an eye toward limiting it to one reshoot, but pushed discussion to the Feb meeting.


  • Stubb, GuanoLoco and peterthefish like this

#2 Ben

Ben

    MFCEO

  • Administrators
  • 2,269 posts

Posted 31 January 2017 - 10:42 AM

The BOD does look like they are working on the Classification system.

‚ÄčI don't think they are going to retroactively fuck with classifications.


  • Jht05016 likes this

#3 Peally

Peally

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,855 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 31 January 2017 - 11:00 AM

They won't fuck with them, that wouldn't make any sense. It does sound like they plan to change around HHF scores though, which would be nice to balance out the famous and infamous ones.

 

As far as a timeline I'm assuming a committee needs to go over what they want to officially propose; there's intentionally no date set in the BOD release.



#4 Larry Costa

Larry Costa

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 797 posts

Posted 31 January 2017 - 11:06 AM

Seem easy to get bumped performance wise. The 50 in a division will be tough.

Because of who I am dawg = EABOD


#5 CrappyShooter

CrappyShooter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 219 posts
  • LocationYour wife's Boner Garage

Posted 31 January 2017 - 03:44 PM

Seem easy to get bumped performance wise. The 50 in a division will be tough.

For Single Stack. L10 and Revo and C/O and PCC.

 

Guess this really only applies to the real Divisions.


  • waktasz likes this

#6 rob boudrie

rob boudrie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 31 January 2017 - 08:11 PM

 

 

 I didn't see a time line for implementation. 

 

I have most of the code done, and will have it complete in time for next Tuesday's run.

 

I don't see the part of the 15% delta for the A flag changing to 20%.  If someone can point that out in the minutes, I will make that change as well.

 

Note that this is "going forward".  My understanding is that this is "going forward" and will not be applied to already submitted matches.


  • Stubb and NickBlasta like this

#7 Michel Neaucheutte

Michel Neaucheutte

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 31 January 2017 - 09:31 PM

I don't see the part of the 15% delta for the A flag changing to 20%.  If someone can point that out in the minutes, I will make that change as well.

 

The BOD accepted "changes as presented" in the minutes, but the presentation was separate and had more details than were in the minutes. The part about the A-flag is on slide 6:

 

https://www.uspsa.or...ssifier 101.pdf



#8 rob boudrie

rob boudrie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 31 January 2017 - 09:38 PM

The BOD accepted "changes as presented" in the minutes, but the presentation was separate and had more details than were in the minutes. The part about the A-flag is on slide 6:

 

https://www.uspsa.or...ssifier 101.pdf

 

I will confirm with HQ.  This is the easiest of the changes.



#9 snark

snark

    Aberrant Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • LocationNull Island

Posted 31 January 2017 - 09:53 PM

About time somebody looked at the HHFs again. 


Use the rules. Don't DQ someone who doesn't do anything DQable. -- Da Beard.

 


#10 rob boudrie

rob boudrie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 31 January 2017 - 11:42 PM

I checked with HQ.  The reason that "The limit for "A" flags switches from 15% above your current class to 20%" was not on the work order they gave me after the BOD meeting was that I did this back in November at HQ's direction.   (I checked the code and it is indeed 20%).

 

The classification engine is independent of the web site, and will not need any changes when the big web project is finally done.  Also, we keep that code "in house" due the subtleties of getting all the procedures correct, and the need to quickly implement any changes.

 

Bug reports to www.uspsa.org/support.   This will get much better tracking than an email to the staff or me.


  • NickBlasta likes this

#11 mosher

mosher

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 162 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 10:22 AM

Match bumps going automatic looks like a good thing. Rob, you know if there is any progress on being able to upload multigun results? I know that's low low low on the totem pole, but just curious.

#12 rob boudrie

rob boudrie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 02:02 PM

Have not been working on Multigun, but I know I should give it some attention.  The code is done but that feature has not received the beating needed to make sure all aspects of that work properly.

 

Also, all uploading code is being re-written as part of the web project.   The two things are are not being touched as the classification program and the results/classification database schema.



#13 MemphisMechanic

MemphisMechanic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 863 posts
  • LocationMemphis, TN

Posted 01 February 2017 - 02:28 PM

From the minutes:

  • The limit for "A" flags switches from 15% above your current class to 20%.
  • For a major to count as a classifier: 3 GMs finishing at 90% or higher in a division, plus at least 50 participants in the division (sorry, revo/L10/CO). (Currently it's just 3 GMs per division.)
  • Match bumps going automatic: finish 95%+ at Nationals = bump to GM, finish 5%+ above current class in a L2+ = bump to next class (subject to 3 GMs at 90%+ in the division and 50+ in the division).
  • Biannual review of classifier HHFs because, "in some cases there were no 100% scores, in others, there were 100% scores deep into the classes." I'm curious what the outliers are. I need to optimize my grandbagging so I can practice less. I also wonder how the rollout of new HHF would impact existing classifications--will they adjust retroactively?
BOD adopted the changes, but I didn't see a time line for implementation. I don't know if it depends on any IT stuff, and I assume the HHF review means a committee.

Looks like they talked about reshooting classifiers with an eye toward limiting it to one reshoot, but pushed discussion to the Feb meeting.

Has anyone ever heard of someone rolling out a hundo on Long Range Standards CM 99-09?

Or Long Range Standards 2? 08-05 I think...

Didn't think so.
I won an IDPA match once. It was neat.

#14 TCB

TCB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 04:13 PM

Have HHF adjusted recently?  I shot one a couple weeks ago that the classifier calculators were telling me was a 94ish% and by the time it showed up on the uspsa website, it was a mid 80's% run.



#15 TCB

TCB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 04:22 PM

Seem easy to get bumped performance wise. The 50 in a division will be tough.

 

 

For Single Stack. L10 and Revo and C/O and PCC.

 

Guess this really only applies to the real Divisions.

 

 

I think it will be a tough bogey to hit in a lot of L2 matches.  Alabama Sectional has one division with more than 2 GM's and it only has 36 shooters (Open) and only one Division meets the greater than 50 shooters (Limited).  Granted, there is still time to register.



#16 Mike Foley

Mike Foley

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 907 posts

Posted 02 February 2017 - 07:15 AM

Have HHF adjusted recently? I shot one a couple weeks ago that the classifier calculators were telling me was a 94ish% and by the time it showed up on the uspsa website, it was a mid 80's% run.


No
  • TCB likes this

#17 Peally

Peally

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,855 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 02 February 2017 - 08:11 AM

Have HHF adjusted recently?  I shot one a couple weeks ago that the classifier calculators were telling me was a 94ish% and by the time it showed up on the uspsa website, it was a mid 80's% run.

 

The calculators aren't always 100% accurate, unfortunately.


  • TCB likes this

#18 Michel Neaucheutte

Michel Neaucheutte

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 02 February 2017 - 08:33 AM

The calculators aren't always 100% accurate, unfortunately.

 

There was something else in the minutes or the classifier presentation to the effect that an official USPSA classifier calculator will be part of the website upgrades.



#19 Twinkie

Twinkie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,504 posts

Posted 02 February 2017 - 10:34 AM

There was something else in the minutes or the classifier presentation to the effect that an official USPSA classifier calculator will be part of the website upgrades.


Hopefully not developed by the same peeps as Practiscore.

#20 Miculek is a Noob

Miculek is a Noob

    V.C.R.O.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,865 posts

Posted 02 February 2017 - 05:25 PM

Hopefully not developed by the same peeps as Practiscore.

 

Not sure what that means, but would not make sense to have it developed by Rob Boudrie, since he's the guy who's writing and maintaining the rest of the classification code?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users