i just got my video of finals! what a competition. is it just the video or was jb's ballad out of tune a lot? i saw the christina tour...wonder where they got the idea of "the greatest show" haha http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bybYgdrQgyY What is with the judging mess? come on fame
hmm....
so. anybody get their FAME Chicago DVD yet? I can't wait to see all of the amazing performances that all deserve to be talked about
They did have them on sale at the venue shortly after the competition was over (though as you can probably imagine, the lines were pretty long). I'm not sure how long it will take them to send out the mail orders, but they did tell us that anyone who wanted to have their DVDs mailed instead of waiting in line could do so and they would ship them out the next day. So if you pre-ordered your disc or sent it in shortly after the competition, my guess is that you'll be receiving it soon.
If yours doesn't come today, hang tight... the first of my FAME goodies comes this evening.
But is a raw score of 137.5 and 138 the same? If the answer is yes, then all is good. If not, then the results are NOT right. Clinton and Waubonsie Valley were both awarded a third place ranking for those raw scores! Why? Go look! It's on the score sheet FAME posted!
okay, somehow this is my first post in this topic and it's to clarify a math problem... typical of me.
i've reverse engineered the FAME scoresheet to the best of my limited abilities. it boils down to this:
1) raw scores were "standardized" for each main section of the scoresheet. for example, the highest total vocal score of the evening was 49, given by judge drinkall to three different groups (clinton, burroughs, waubonsie valley). this 49 was "standardized" to the value 6.5 and all the other raw vocal totals from each judge were then converted accordingly. thus, a raw total vocal score of 42.5 would be (42.5/49)(6.5) = 5.637
however, on the FAME scoresheet, 5.637 has been rounded to 5.7 for some reason. there are a number of rounding errors, but without recalculating all the scores, i will assume (for now, so i can finish this post before 6 am) that rounding errors did not affect the outcome.
2) vocal, visual, show & combo raw total scores were then converted using the same method above and summed. i assume this was done for the "overall" score as well (the purple column from the FAME scoresheet), but they do not show this value. i will assume a 10.0 in that category equates to 1.7, but again, rounding errors seem to be in play. (FAME may have converted the total raw scores first, using the 147.5 from judge drinkall as the benchmark, hence the rounding errors to make the math work).
3) ranks were determined from the standardized scores. i will not rehash how the ties were broken in these scores. it appears a factor was chosen such that the adjusted scores for all six judges would add up to a point total around 100.
They said they didn't impliment the "majority rules" rule unless there was a tie. And there should not be ties in the ranking! The judges clearly spelled out through their raw scores how they ranked their groups.
This is why I want the director's book posted... because I don't think this is what they have printed.
Good point, Yuri. For instance, look at John Burroughs visual scores.
Drinkal: 10, 9.5, 10, 10
Weber: 10, 10, 10, 9
A .5 difference, yet the vocal total from both became 4.9.
Can someone explain that?
It looks as if they are only rounding to the tenths decimal place in their transfer over to "percentage vocal total". Which in a competition of this level where every fraction of a point matters, is ridiculous. .5 of a point would show up had they rounded to a higher decimal place! It should not by any means be disregarded, and if it is - then that is a MAJOR issue.
Without insight into how the raw scores might be misleading in calculating the final results, it would be assumed that the rank points for all the finalist groups are different than noted. Also assuming there were no other calculation errors on FAME's part, the rank totals of each group would be as follows: John Burroughs would have 8 rank points, North Central would have 16 rank points, Clinton would have 17 rank points, Waubonsie Valley would have 19 rank points, South Jones would have 32 rank points and John Burroughs girls would have 34 rank points.
And so, to prevent further confusion and bring insight as to how differing raw scores could equate identical percentages or "total" scores, would a FAME representative elaborate on the scoring process?
Meaning according to the FAME press release, the results should be this:
GC - John Burroughs (8)
2nd - North Central (16)
3rd - Clinton (17)
4th - Waubonsie Valley (19)
They said they didn't impliment the "majority rules" rule unless there was a tie. And there should not be ties in the ranking! The judges clearly spelled out through their raw scores how they ranked their groups.
It's a bit ridiculous to think that these judges had their names and reputations as adjudicators attached to rankings that they did not score!
The error lies in the transfering of raw scores over to percentages. This is definitely a flawed system, because it has so obviously misrepresented the point totals that the judges put down. If FAME will not admit that the final results are skewed, the LEAST they can do is admit that this system is flawed and potentially change their method of using these percentages-only-rounded-to-a-tenth-decimal-place-which-disregards-.5-points! At a competition of this level, every half point counts. It would have at any other competition, so why not for FAME? I'm guessing the number of half points disregarded due to the "percentage rounding" is around 10+. That's 10+ points that just evaporated and disappeared, never to impact the final outcome of the competition!
I concur with Yuri and Aaron. They're super smart.
And I also echo my request from before... please post the official director's rule / judging system book that was given to them before the competition.
I echo the confusion of Yuri and others. While I appreciate the effort from FAME Events to clear up any possible inconsistencies, I still fear there is much that is vague about the scoring process.
When one checks the raw scores relating to the admitted scoring errors, it's clear that the rankings are not consistent with the scores. Could the inconsistencies lie with a misunderstanding of how the raw scores are converted into a percentage? Yes, and because of that possibility I think it would be very helpful if a representative from FAME could explain the scoring process in more detail. Until better explanation is available, the discrepancy Yuri points out, among others, appear to be oversights.
To illustrate an example, we may look at the matter of Andrew Drinkall's rankings being switched for Clinton and John Burroughs. Drinkall gave Clinton a raw score of 146.5 and John Burroughs a raw score of 147.5, a difference of one point to which a Troy student has already alluded. While I admit to not knowing how the conversion of the scores works, if they are based on the original raw scores of the judges, the change of rankings to John Burroughs in first and Clinton in second seems to be accurate.
However with Judith Ranaletta's supposed tie in rank between Clinton and Waubonsie Valley, there is an inconsistency. Ranaletta gave Clinton a raw score of 137.5 and Waubonsie Valley a raw score of 138.
Also with Heath Weber's rank tie between John Burroughs girls and South Jones, the raw scores again don't match. Weber gave John Burroughs girls a raw score of 132 and South Jones a raw score of 133.
Lastly, Damon Brown's tie in rank between North Central and John Burroughs is seemingly confusing. Brown gave North Central a raw score of 141 and John Burroughs a raw score of 140.5.
Without insight into how the raw scores might be misleading in calculating the final results, it would be assumed that the rank points for all the finalist groups are different than noted. Also assuming there were no other calculation errors on FAME's part, the rank totals of each group would be as follows: John Burroughs would have 8 rank points, North Central would have 16 rank points, Clinton would have 17 rank points, Waubonsie Valley would have 19 rank points, South Jones would have 32 rank points and John Burroughs girls would have 34 rank points.
And so, to prevent further confusion and bring insight as to how differing raw scores could equate identical percentages or "total" scores, would a FAME representative elaborate on the scoring process?
see yuri, thats exactly what I'm talkin about. All this stuff is just makin my head hurt. With the comment I posted, I wasn't dissing you for questioning it. If you want to, by all means...go ahead. I was not including anyone else in what I was saying. I was just saying that I am just going to take Häakons word for it. He knows alot more than I do, so what ev. In any case...John Burroughs ROCKS! Wish I could have been there to see the show down between four of the best show choirs out there!!
lol, I understand. It's very frustrating to me too. I'm about to take some aspirin.
Good point, Yuri. For instance, look at John Burroughs visual scores.
Drinkal: 10, 9.5, 10, 10
Weber: 10, 10, 10, 9
A .5 difference, yet the vocal total from both became 4.9.
Can someone explain that?
But is a raw score of 137.5 and 138 the same? If the answer is yes, then all is good. If not, then the results are NOT right. Clinton and Waubonsie Valley were both awarded a third place ranking for those raw scores! Why? Go look! It's on the score sheet FAME posted!
see yuri, thats exactly what I'm talkin about. All this stuff is just makin my head hurt. With the comment I posted, I wasn't dissing you for questioning it. If you want to, by all means...go ahead. I was not including anyone else in what I was saying. I was just saying that I am just going to take Häakons word for it. He knows alot more than I do, so what ev. In any case...John Burroughs ROCKS! Wish I could have been there to see the show down between four of the best show choirs out there!!
pretty sure none of this ties/tabulation/scoring methods/whatever else makes ANY sense at all to me. And further more, I doubt if anyone tried to explain it to me that I would understand it any better than I do now. So I will just save everyone the trouble, and take Häakons word for it. If he says its all good, its all good! He's the boss!
But is a raw score of 137.5 and 138 the same? If the answer is yes, then all is good. If not, then the results are NOT right. Clinton and Waubonsie Valley were both awarded a third place ranking for those raw scores! Why? Go look! It's on the score sheet FAME posted!
pretty sure none of this ties/tabulation/scoring methods/whatever else makes ANY sense at all to me. And further more, I doubt if anyone tried to explain it to me that I would understand it any better than I do now. So I will just save everyone the trouble, and take Häakons word for it. If he says its all good, its all good! He's the boss!
I'm really confused as to how some of the judges raw scores ended up converting into ties, when the raw scores are NOT ties! Can someone from FAME please explain to me how raw scores are transfered into percentages? This just doesn't make sense to me. If judges wanted ties, they would have given groups the same raw score wouldn't they? What is the formula for raw scores transfering into percentages, and WHY does it not account for fractions of points? We all knew going into this competition the final results would be decided by mere fraction of points, so why are they all of sudden disregarded in this percentage conversion? It does not make sense to me. LOOK AT THAT SCORE SHEET! Add up those scores! All of those "ties" (every single one, I kid you not) listed on that sheet are NOT ties in raw points, so WHY are they ranked as ties? If it's because .5 points doesn't transfer over to the percentages because it's such a small number - then that's a flawed system! .5 points would transfer over, if the percentages were rounded to more decimal places!
just like haakon said before
the director of FAME events posted a headline about the whole competition including the score sheet.
www.fameevents.net
that is the website
congrats again to everyone for an excleent competition, and for FAME for Putting ON a wonderful competition.
so... north central had better rankings than clinton. right? so therefore shouldn't north have gotten second place? i know they said they determine ties with points and clinton was ahead in points, but north was beating clinton in the first place with rankings...
and also...
this was my impression too...weren't the ties only because of errors? correct me if i'm wrong, i've been trying to figure this out for a while.
FAME Chicago 2008
" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />
