Ratings Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ratings

    I'm new to the PDGA ratings thing. I just got my number a few weeks ago. But I have since played in a sanctioned event. Wondering when the next rating update will be? I can't seem to find it listed anywhere. Thanks in Advance

  • #2
    Here's a link to the pdga ratings FAQ.

    If they are on schedule then the next update is on Aug. 13th. Of course the pdga depends on TDs officially submitting their results, not just copying and pasting the results on the website. Hopefully you'll have a rating very soon!

    Comment


    • #3
      ^^^
      Thanks very much!

      Comment


      • #4
        The new way to tell if your event has been reported to the PDGA in time for the next update is the event will simply be listed on your stats page (no ratings) even though the event results will still be shown as unofficial.

        Comment


        • #5
          Not showing.....

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mcw5378 View Post
            Not showing.....
            Politely bring that up to the TD. He may not be aware of an issue.

            Comment


            • #7
              MCW,

              While I am not 100% sure about this, I suspect that you're in a somewhat unique situation.

              I see you played in the Huk for Independence, and it appears the TD submitted everything correctly. However, I believe that due your pool of players not having enough propagators to generate the ratings automatically, they will have to be manually adjusted by the PDGA during the next ratings update.

              I think if you look at the Click Flick last weekend, you'll see a very similar situation for some of those newer players.

              Again, I'm not 100% sure about this, but I do think I'm on the right track.
              "You won't like me when I am angry, because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources". - The Credible Hulk

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bullseye View Post
                MCW,

                While I am not 100% sure about this, I suspect that you're in a somewhat unique situation.

                I see you played in the Huk for Independence, and it appears the TD submitted everything correctly. However, I believe that due your pool of players not having enough propagators to generate the ratings automatically, they will have to be manually adjusted by the PDGA during the next ratings update.

                I think if you look at the Click Flick last weekend, you'll see a very similar situation for some of those newer players.

                Again, I'm not 100% sure about this, but I do think I'm on the right track.
                That very well may be the case. Matthew played the Huk, and it shows up on his page.

                I seem to remember Josh saying that there were not enough propagators for the Rec division.

                I don't think the adjustment happens automatically. Looking at the PDGA page, there are no ratings for the Rec division at all. That's different than the Chick Flick.

                MCW should check with the TD to see if he can submit a modified ratings report.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Scott View Post
                  That very well may be the case. Matthew played the Huk, and it shows up on his page.

                  I seem to remember Josh saying that there were not enough propagators for the Rec division.

                  I don't think the adjustment happens automatically. Looking at the PDGA page, there are no ratings for the Rec division at all. That's different than the Chick Flick.

                  MCW should check with the TD to see if he can submit a modified ratings report.
                  That might be due to Matthew having played intermediate. There were 13 propagators in that division/pool. Propagators are the players whose ratings are showed in bold.

                  The Rec division has none.

                  Who knows. We shall see.
                  "You won't like me when I am angry, because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources". - The Credible Hulk

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bullseye View Post
                    That might be due to Matthew having played intermediate. There were 13 propagators in that division/pool. Propagators are the players whose ratings are showed in bold.

                    The Rec division has none.

                    Who knows. We shall see.
                    That's my point. Because Matthew's scores show up and MCW's do not I beleive the TD report was submitted properly. It also appears that the rec division scores were not entered on purpose, for the reasons discussed. But I don't think the ratings for that division will automagically appear at when the ratings are updated. I think the TD has to make a special request and perhaps provide some additional information.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Paging Chuck Kennedy.

                      Ratings Control... We have a problem.
                      "You won't like me when I am angry, because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources". - The Credible Hulk

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bullseye View Post
                        Paging Chuck Kennedy.

                        Ratings Control... We have a problem.
                        If it helps, propagators (and the number of them necessary for ratings) are per 'pool' rather than per division. i.e. everyone who played the same course and layout at the same time. To generate round ratings, you need at least five propagators in that pool/field. So if the Rec division played the same course layout as the other division(s), and there were enough propagators for them, there are enough for Rec. If that's the case, it could be a matter of the TD report improperly reporting which divisions played which course (layouts). On the TD report, the TD must enter a specific course and layout for each division playing, and those have to of course match up. Does that help?

                        Edit: so as not to confuse anyone, a 'propagator' is any player with at least 8 prior rated rounds. Current members who are propagators have their ratings show up in bold on the event report, and even non-current-members, if you mouse-over where their rating should be, will have a little tooltip that says 'propagator' if they are propagators.
                        Last edited by jeverett; August 2nd, 2013, 04:47 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Scott View Post
                          That very well may be the case. Matthew played the Huk, and it shows up on his page.

                          I seem to remember Josh saying that there were not enough propagators for the Rec division.

                          I don't think the adjustment happens automatically. Looking at the PDGA page, there are no ratings for the Rec division at all. That's different than the Chick Flick.

                          MCW should check with the TD to see if he can submit a modified ratings report.
                          There is no rating for the highlands ever ... I don't think it has a SSA at all

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            A course does not need a prior SSA for ratings to be computed. Each tournament day/round is independently derived from the propagators that are present.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mr. Anderson View Post
                              A course does not need a prior SSA for ratings to be computed. Each tournament day/round is independently derived from the propagators that are present.
                              Yep, any sanctioned round on a course/layout of at least 13 holes can get a rating, providing there are at least 5 propagators in the field/pool. SSA's (or lack of them) from the past don't make any difference with regard to producing new round ratings (with the slight exception that for multiple-round events on the same course/layout, the PDGA *may* (providing the rounds have "similar-enough" SSA's) combine the rounds for SSA and round rating calculation purposes.. this happens in between the 'unofficial' and 'official' ratings for the round).

                              Comment

                              Announcement Announcement Module
                              Collapse
                              No announcement yet.
                              Working...
                              X