Raw scores only don't always accurately reflect the true opinion of the judging panel. One judge with radically different totals can sway the results.
Say there are 5 judges.
Judge A scores choir X 100 points and choir Y 70 points.
Judge B scores choir X 70 points and choir Y 75 points
Judge C scores choir X 75 points and choir Y 80 points
Judge D scores choir X 90 points and choir y 95 points
Judge E scores choir X 85 points and choir y 90 points.
Even though 4 of the 5 judges gave choir Y higher scores – each a whole 5 points more, choir X wins simply because Judge A gave choir X so many more points. And that’s not the consensus of the panel at all.
If the scores are turned into rankings:
Choir Y receives 2, 1, 1, 1, 1.
Choir X receives 1, 2, 2, 2, 2
Choir Y wins, with truly reflects the opinion of the panel as a whole.
But if things are the way they are and since FAME says that everything is correct, where are we getting by speculating and wondering about scores and placements. If FAME says that everything is correct, then no placements are going to be changed and everything will remain the same.
That being said, I don't understand why all of these competitions insist on converting to the ranking system. Just keep it with scores that accurately put everyone where they should be without doing all of this ranking crap. I think that we can all agree on placements with just the scores given. With just scores, there would be no issu with rankings and point averages and all of that stuff. Just put 100 pts. for vocal, 100 for visual, 50 for band, and 50 for overall presentation and then whoever has the closest to 300 is the grand champion and everyone else falls into place behind them. I never say the point in converting to the ranking system, personally.
EDIT: Oh, and I see that people are getting their finals DVDs. As soon as people can, lets get 'em up. I can't wait for the "goodies" due up tonight.
Im gonna guess that when you become an actual director, sign up for an event, and have a real need to know the official scoring system you'll get that information. In the meantime I doubt very seriously they are going to feel the need to send that out to you just because you're the self proclaimed idiot savant of showchoir.com Maybe I'm wrong. " border="0" alt="ermm.gif" />
Just a guess...
QUOTE(Jorge @ Apr 2 2008, 12:13 PM) 431621
You're so charming!
Everyone has the need to know the official scoring system after this hot mess... that is why I am inquiring for it. I've heard what it says... and know that FAME isn't sticking to it.
Idiot Savant! That's a new one! I'll add it to my list.
There must be something in the air that everyone has the need to verbally attack each other this week!?!? Not sure they meant this as a rude comment but this phrase is used quite often in the positive manner also and, while sometimes refers to people with a lower IQ and a very extreme intelligence in one area (like the arts or music), it has increasingly been found that people labeled idiot savants have an adequate general IQ and are becoming more mainstreamed to deal with slight cases of autisim and still promote the subject matter where their intelligence soars beyond us commoners. Eveyone should watch Autisim the Musical. Very Touching!
Just a note, we post our rules and is avail for download off the website from day one when they sign up for Grand River. If we can do it, certainly a national competition can do it. I just assumed everyone would.
It seems to me that a lot of people are just being "sheep." Just because the FAME events says that it's fine doesn't mean it is. Look at some of the points that are brought up with what is wrong. They make sense. I do think that Burroughs was obviously the best group and the next three are shown to be close to equal. But I also think thst we have the right to challenge the system that is for a "National Competition" especially one of this calliber.
It seems to me that a lot of people are just being "sheep." Just because the FAME events says that it's fine doesn't mean it is. Look at some of the points that are brought up with what is wrong. They make sense. I do think that Burroughs was obviously the best group and the next three are shown to be close to equal. But I also think thst we have the right to challenge the system that is for a "National Competition" especially one of this calliber.
in the end, FAME got it right based on the raw score conversion used and their method of breaking ties. even using the raw scores themselves, clinton is far and away the true first runner-up. the self-disclosed (and discovered) errors did not affect placements.
in other news, i hate not being able to have seen this thing live... but i anxiously await the "goodies".
I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion. Could you perhaps elaborate? Maybe respond to Aaron Fancey's post that addressed the "four ties" in scoring (3 of which were marked as ties on the score sheet, and 1 which was not). I know it's asking a lot, but could you possibly break down the rank points for us all to see? Because in raw points if Waubonsie Valley had a 138 and Clinton a 137.5, and they were both given 3's ... shouldn't that mean if it were correct, that Waubonsie Valley would have a 3, and Clinton a 4, increasing Clinton's rank score, breaking the tie between their rank score with North Central's rank score (North Central in favor)?
I mean I understand that you're saying "based on their conversion method used" ... but even still, wouldn't that half a point have been transfered over to the converted total, or were all half points just disregarded? If they were disregarded, then it makes sense how the results came to be, but still it's not right that that's how it was.
How is it that the judges ranked groups how they wanted and then this "conversion system" CHANGED their results to put ties in when there were not. I understand that under FAME's tie breaking methods Clinton is the rightful 2nd place choir ... but if there weren't even ties in the first place (which there weren't - the ties were CREATED in the estimated/rounded point conversion) then it's an issue.
Really, this scoring controversy shows us two things:
1) The panel, as a whole, thought that Clinton, North Central, and Waubonsie Valley were basically equal.
2) The panel, as a whole, thought that Burroughs was the best group at the competition.
Can't we just leave it at that?
What are you crazy? It would be much better to talk about it on an internet discussion forum for the next 2 weeks! lol in actuality you are exactly right
From what i have seen things we way too close for my liking and although what it looks like is NC should be 2nd, lets just call it a tie and move on, this is crazy
in the end, FAME got it right based on the raw score conversion used and their method of breaking ties. even using the raw scores themselves, clinton is far and away the true first runner-up. the self-disclosed (and discovered) errors did not affect placements.
in other news, i hate not being able to have seen this thing live... but i anxiously await the "goodies".
Im gonna guess that when you become an actual director, sign up for an event, and have a real need to know the official scoring system you'll get that information. In the meantime I doubt very seriously they are going to feel the need to send that out to you just because you're the self proclaimed idiot savant of showchoir.com Maybe I'm wrong. " border="0" alt="ermm.gif" />
Just a guess...
I don't mean to attack you or single you out by saying this, but I have to come to Adam's defense. His request is VERY pertinent to this situation. If you go back to when this controversy was first starting to be talked about, the initial concern was that FAME changed their method of ranking from what they originally said it would be in their rulebook.
Now that they have posted the scores ... the main concern has turned/moved away from the initial concern of the rulebook, because FAME's scores are a fiasco/hot mess ... but really one of the main concerns should remain this question: Did FAME change their method of ranking after finals? If they did why? Was it to manipulate the results? Was it just an innocent error? Was it perhaps suggested by someone? I mean, how many competitions have you heard of stating in their rules that finals would be decided by one method, and then in the end finals is decided by a completely different method THAT IS NOT listed in the rulebook? That's a HUGE deal if it effects placements and in this case it did.
No one is trying to be a smart ass here. We're all just trying to get to the bottom of this. If FAME wants to keep their integrity as a competition, it'd behoove them to post this information, and also reply to us as to why they created ties when there were none. This is a huge deal! As already posted groups paid thousands and thousands of dollars to compete in this competition ... how can we do anything BUT get to the bottom of this? Our (everyone who has posted questions pertaining to the results) concern is genuine, we are not trying to point fingers! I am sorry if you think so!
Just curious because I wasn't there. Were there even any groups that competed at FAME Chicago? Or, did the Fame staff just decide to have a big discussion over their scoring for runner up groups? I only ask because I have been reading the last 10 pages of this topic and I've seen only a handful of posts that actually talked about the competition and the groups there.
I would love to hear more about the actual Competition. If you go through the last 10 pages you will see that everything regarding scoring has been discussed a lot. At this point a seperate topic about the way FAME does their scoring would probably be a much better avenue.
I personally feel as a "National Competition" there should be rules readily available to the public. If not I don't see how they could call it a "National Competition." I think for the sake of FAME they should just post all the rules like Showstoppers does on their own website. I hope this won't lead to a downfall of FAME. I don't think it will.
I'm glad someone agrees.
This won't be the downfall of FAME though. What you need to realize is that FAME is just one big touring company making money. When it comes down to it... that is their goal. Now if they only would spend some of that dough on a better computer scoring system...... or actually holding the event IN Chicago instead of light years away.
I personally feel as a "National Competition" there should be rules readily available to the public. If not I don't see how they could call it a "National Competition." I think for the sake of FAME they should just post all the rules like Showstoppers does on their own website. I hope this won't lead to a downfall of FAME. I don't think it will.
Im gonna guess that when you become an actual director, sign up for an event, and have a real need to know the official scoring system you'll get that information. In the meantime I doubt very seriously they are going to feel the need to send that out to you just because you're the self proclaimed idiot savant of showchoir.com Maybe I'm wrong. " border="0" alt="ermm.gif" />
Just a guess...
You're so charming!
Everyone has the need to know the official scoring system after this hot mess... that is why I am inquiring for it. I've heard what it says... and know that FAME isn't sticking to it.
Idiot Savant! That's a new one! I'll add it to my list.
It appears there are even more instances like this on that sheet. It's making me dizzy, so I've stopped! (and forgive me if I did in fact make a mistake - tell me, so I edit it here please!)
Um, I may be just a singer - and like to group my math into numbers no bigger than a 4/4 measure, but even I can tell that is NOT a tie.
I can say this much though, that this kind of confusion over the changes to percentages that FAME uses has been inducing bald spots due to head scratching for years now...
This all goes back to what i believe Haakon said earlier, what is wrong with giving a group a 5???? We could avoid this whole using only one decimal place argument very simply. NEVER USE HALF A POINT, why do you need to give half a point when you already have 1-10 to use. Has anyone ever seen a 1 on a scoresheet? how bout 2? 3? 4? even a 5? From what i have seen the conversion t percentages is stupid, leave it as a raw score where no rounding is necessary, and tell judges it is ok to give lower scores, we don't have to be confined to 8-10. From what i have seen things we way too close for my liking and although what it looks like is NC should be 2nd, lets just call it a tie and move on, this is crazy
...because you're the self proclaimed idiot savant of showchoir.com
Was that really necessary? FAME should continue to address these concerns if they want any scrap of reputation left. They may not be smart enough to, but your insulting someone is just rude.
I applaud FAME for posting their scores and admitting their mistakes. But, now I have to go further and ask that they also publicly post their official rules/judging system manual that they give to directors for complete clarity.
Im gonna guess that when you become an actual director, sign up for an event, and have a real need to know the official scoring system you'll get that information. In the meantime I doubt very seriously they are going to feel the need to send that out to you just because you're the self proclaimed idiot savant of showchoir.com Maybe I'm wrong. " border="0" alt="ermm.gif" />
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
i was able to get one of the very first copies of the DVD sold after the show on sat. ..i feel very lucky. haha..im sorry for acting obnoxious.. lol. i recommend it to everybody! its soo good!! ... well..the choirs in it are good lol.
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?
Similarly, Drinkall's 'tied' vocal scores for Burroughs mixed and Waubonsie Valley:
It appears there are even more instances like this on that sheet. It's making me dizzy, so I've stopped! (and forgive me if I did in fact make a mistake - tell me, so I edit it here please!)
Um, I may be just a singer - and like to group my math into numbers no bigger than a 4/4 measure, but even I can tell that is NOT a tie.
I can say this much though, that this kind of confusion over the changes to percentages that FAME uses has been inducing bald spots due to head scratching for years now...
FAME Chicago 2008
" border="0" alt="ermm.gif" /> 
i recommend it to everybody! its soo good!! ... well..the choirs in it are good lol.