Ranking Position Numbering Poll

[mikvan52]

It's sad to concede that people fake times/distances rowed (and such).
They'd even fake weight, too, if allowed. All for the glory of being #1 on the erg ( a sport that, when it comes to sanity, is quite difficult to explain to strangers )

In a few years everyone will have the IND_V capability on his/her erg... How many still row on a Concept 2 "A" model? Capability for self-verification of IND_V will expand as the years go by. I hope it's not too much work for C2 to take up the slack in the meantime!

My vote has to go with deterrence: Verify the top 3.
There are some whacky people out there in cyber-land

[Robt.Lee]

I think the current system of not numbering unverified is good. People make mistakes entering their times or meters. One can generally tell, if someone posted an 17:45 in the 5K and their best 1K was 4:10, there would have to be an error. Most of us who are in the top 10, are in the top 10 across the board.
I agree that UNV or something would be more clear than IND.

[Two Pudding Kid]

From the current ranking system it is clear there are "duff" times/distances recorded. I agree that there needs to be some validation of the data when it is recorded to throw out spurious times/distances (either impossibly fast/slow).

The question of ID was mentioned by another contributor on this forum. I think that although it is possible for people to claim rankings based on a ficticous or a friend's workout, there should be automatic comparison of an individual's performance at other distances for those in the top say 10% of any category. In my opinion any piece that doesn't fit in with what would be expected for someone of that calibre should be verifed before ranking, (ie where the 5k pace is quicker than 2k for example).

As the IND-V facility is not available to all, (there must be many who use gym-based Model C's), I am not in favour of log-cards etc being compulsory to obtain a ranking.

I feel the numbering in the rankings should be done in the way described by "Sheepster" which would also suit "data_duck", and anyone else in a category with only a few entrants.

[billwright]

All top 3 performers, regardless of speed, should be verified before receiving a place.

Is there some mechanism that determines the age of the person at the time of submitting the statistic to ensure they are in the correct category at the time? Is that part of the 16 digit code?

Bill Wright

[Citroen]

Is there some mechanism that determines the age of the person at the time of submitting the statistic to ensure they are in the correct category at the time? Is that part of the 16 digit code?

No.

The 16digit verification code is derived (with an unpublished one-way encryption/encipher algorithm) from date, distance and elapsed time. The PM3/PM4 has no idea who rowed the piece.

If were to you enter the following workout: Oct 13, 2000m, 8:24.9 0A4C:BC96:F680:F382 it will show as IND_V. In just the same way that it would verify it for me (even with identical data).

Also you can get a verified row for a piece that's out of bounds by configuring the PM3/PM4 for model C and mounting it on a model D/E.

[Jef]

Are all Row Pro entries classed as Verified? I've got one in at 2nd.. a couple at 3rd and one at 4th and they've all been "Numbered" (45-49 LWT) so.. I take it there's no further need of verification?

[Jef]

Forget that... I've found the answer (yes) in the other thread.

[johnlvs2run]

Yes put whatever time you want with RowPro and you'll get a verification.

[Pamela]

I think that the top few rankings should be verified with either a verification code, a verification email, or a photo of the display in pre-verification code models. I think that some form of verification should be available to the lone rower; the rower who doesn't have an on-demand audience to confirm their efforts. Therefore, verification codes should be acceptable, and for pre-verification code models, an emailed photo of the info on the display should count.

When I first started logging times, I didn't know any of my rows would be ranked and when some were, I was proud of them. Frankly, that was the hook for this fish. I didn't know how to get verification codes, so I don't have codes for the rows I first logged. I could ask someone who saw my rows to check his notes and send in a verification email if it's an issue. I am lucky enough to have had many of them watched and noted. I use the rower at my health club, as do so many others that the memory is usually full of each days rows and only occasionally has rows from previous days in it. Therefore, I get the code when I do the row. If I forget, it's quickly gone.

I bother to log and rank my rows because I am proud of them. I am proud of them only because I did them and they are better than the ones I did before. In some basic way, I am hanging my drawing on the fridge! It may not be pretty, but dag-nabbit, I did it!

Treating every ranking rower as a potential cheat takes the fun out of it, is demeaning and is discouraging. It may also become the kiss of death for rowing machines in clubs. If staff is always being called away from their jobs to watch Person A row, so that the staff member can then take the necessary steps to confirm that Person A did indeed row each and every row that Person A logs and ranks, then having rowing machines becomes a costly pain in the neck for clubs.

People bent on cheating will always be there and will always find a way. One cannot try to cut them off at every pass; that would be like playing a full-time game of whack-a-mole. Expect each rower to have some integrity. I expect that cheats are few and far between, and that they don't stick around for very long.

[lardogbeck]

Wow ... I always assumed that any crazy times were honest mistakes, not deliberate falsifications. Given that the only award for being at the top of the rankings is bragging rights, what's the point in cheating?

That being said, I think the best compromise would be to have two numbers applied to the rankings ... one for verified only and one for all rankings (verified or not). Then you could sort on whichever one was more important to you.

[johnlvs2run]

Then you could sort on whichever one was more important to you.

Good point.

I agree with Pamela, that there's an onus of "you're cheating!" if you don't have a pm3/4 or have RowPro, regardless that it's easy to cheat with either of them. Also, non pm3 verified times are often included in the top 3 anyway.

A possible best solution is to just number everything, then put the usual codes at the right. If it's Ind, Ind-V, RowPro or whatever, just put that at the right, and number ALL of the times that are entered.

Any times that are out of the realm of possibility should automatically be discarded. Additionally, there is already a system of emailing to C2 for an additional verification code for times that are in the top 10 of the rankings, for any of the age group divisions - unless that's been discarded for the privileged ones with a pm3/4 (like me) or RowPro.

However, it seems to me that numbering everything (that is reasonable) is the best solution for everyone, and hope that others will agree.

[Thomas]

Being a Heavyweight, my weight doesn't matter. But I could see someone who is X-number of pounds of being over the lightweight standard outright lying about being a lightweight. The only way they would be caught is if they went to an actual erg race, raced, and fell on their sword from the last minute weight loss or they actual don't make the weight and therego can't race.

I think the top three verified method probably works. As the season unfolds, the original top three may actually make their way down the ranking so, at one time, a piece that is ranked say 25 was actually verified when it was in the top three, possibly.

I don't suspect anyone of being dishonest. There is only one person that I can think of whose name had came up in conversations as questionable only because no one had seen him pull a time close to what he was posting. A common theme I have seen from competing at several different erg races is that the fast people physically look the part. The person who had came into question physically looks like he is fast but again no one had seen him do it.

[jimzeller]

Unless there is some kind of award with getting a top three ranking, other than bragging rights, I have no problem with the honor system.

[debenrower]

I think the present system is pretty much OK - perhaps it should be extended to any time that looks odd. I am happy to trust concept2 to do this. After all anyone who rows regularly knows what they are capable of - both on a good day and a bad day and all the in-between days. Manipulating the erg doesn't change this self-knowledge. And if a strange time does turn up you can always wait a day or two and have another go to see if you can replicate it.

I think most of us judge ourselves against ourselves, rather than against others in that we are looking for improvement of our personal times. It's nice to rank high of course, but not worth cheating for because inside yourself, you would know it's not real.

[tom pinckney]

why should unverified times be allowed at all? It's easy enough to find a place to compete and only count THOSE times in the numbering system. Otherwise, the times are nothing but TRAINING times.

For example: let's say a fellow is a sprinter and during practice runs a 100 meter race faster than the world record. Does it count? Of course not! So why should TRAINING times be acknoledged at all other than for someone's own personal records?