This is what we were sent along with the rankings. Quite frankly, I can barely do basic math, unless I'm shopping and I need to figure out how much I can spend lol, so this is all terribly confusing to me. It's very thorough, and I'm sure the results turned out exactly as they should have per the scoring system set in place prior to the competition.
Forgive my lack of attention to formatting.
"Bishop Heelan Quad-State Showcase
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The following pages contain a step-by-step guide to our Consensus Ranking or Ordinal scoring system to be used for our finals results at this year’s competition. The Consensus Ranking gets rid of judge point swings and allows for a straight, “majority rules” approach to scoring results. It is our feeling that in the past too many groups have been negatively impacted by a judge who scores on the high or low end of the spectrum. David Fehr, director of Attaché of Clinton, Mississippi, explains it this way: “Olympic Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) simply takes point swings -by actual points or by rank points- out of the equation. For example, with 5 judges, if three of them have School A over School B, School A will finish ahead of School B. Obviously in actual points, this does not necessarily happen.
In ranking systems this does not happen if a judge (or judges) ranks a school much lower than the norm. Example - School A - I, I, I, II, IV School B - II, II, II, I, I
School B would win in this scenario when democratically School A should have finished ahead of School B.
Using Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) takes point swings out of the equation - hopefully keeping talk of "the judge who didn't like us" out of the equation also.
It is a protection for judges (who can truly judge knowing they didn't single-handedly create the outcome).
It is a protection for the directors.
It is a protection for the host contest.
It is a protection for the students.
It is a protection for show choir.
It is a protection for music education.”
Enjoy your day at Heelan and please let us know if there is anything that we can do for you!
Sincerely,
Chris Storm
Director of Choral Activities
Consensus Ranking (Ordinals)
This is an example of how our Consensus Ranking system works for final results at tonight’s competition. This is a step-by-step explanation of how points translate to placements, and then how those placements transfer to a final result. In the event of a tie, the judge’s consensus decision for the best vocal caption award will break a tie for grand champion. All other ties will remain.
1. Give a ranking (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) of competing schools for each judge according to his/her scores. These individual judge’s rankings are to be used as a reference only.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
2. To start a Consensus Ranking, list all competing schools horizontally across the top of your page.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1.
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
3. Now Starting with 1st Place, give one vote from each judge for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list. (For first, obviously their #1 ranked school will get that judge’s vote.)
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
4. Now go back and cross off school C from each judge’s list because they have been awarded 1st Place.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
5. To determine 2nd place, give one vote for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 to finish the Consensus Ranking.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 6.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 11111 6. E
7. Using CONSESUS RANKING, School C would be the winner, followed by A, F, D, B,
and E.
Doing strictly points, School A would have finished first with 444, followed by C-443, F-436, D-418, B-403, and E-374.
Doing the 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10 ranking system, School A would have finished first with 90, followed by C-88, F-86, D-70, B-64, and E-52.
CONSESUS RANKING tries to ensure that each judge has the same weight as any other judge, thus providing a truer consensus, unaffected by large gaps in points.
I hope you didn't just type this all out and all you had to do with copy and paste it... wow
This is what we were sent along with the rankings. Quite frankly, I can barely do basic math, unless I'm shopping and I need to figure out how much I can spend lol, so this is all terribly confusing to me. It's very thorough, and I'm sure the results turned out exactly as they should have per the scoring system set in place prior to the competition.
Forgive my lack of attention to formatting.
"Bishop Heelan Quad-State Showcase
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The following pages contain a step-by-step guide to our Consensus Ranking or Ordinal scoring system to be used for our finals results at this year’s competition. The Consensus Ranking gets rid of judge point swings and allows for a straight, “majority rules” approach to scoring results. It is our feeling that in the past too many groups have been negatively impacted by a judge who scores on the high or low end of the spectrum. David Fehr, director of Attaché of Clinton, Mississippi, explains it this way: “Olympic Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) simply takes point swings -by actual points or by rank points- out of the equation. For example, with 5 judges, if three of them have School A over School B, School A will finish ahead of School B. Obviously in actual points, this does not necessarily happen.
In ranking systems this does not happen if a judge (or judges) ranks a school much lower than the norm. Example - School A - I, I, I, II, IV School B - II, II, II, I, I
School B would win in this scenario when democratically School A should have finished ahead of School B.
Using Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) takes point swings out of the equation - hopefully keeping talk of "the judge who didn't like us" out of the equation also.
It is a protection for judges (who can truly judge knowing they didn't single-handedly create the outcome).
It is a protection for the directors.
It is a protection for the host contest.
It is a protection for the students.
It is a protection for show choir.
It is a protection for music education.”
Enjoy your day at Heelan and please let us know if there is anything that we can do for you!
Sincerely,
Chris Storm
Director of Choral Activities
Consensus Ranking (Ordinals)
This is an example of how our Consensus Ranking system works for final results at tonight’s competition. This is a step-by-step explanation of how points translate to placements, and then how those placements transfer to a final result. In the event of a tie, the judge’s consensus decision for the best vocal caption award will break a tie for grand champion. All other ties will remain.
1. Give a ranking (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) of competing schools for each judge according to his/her scores. These individual judge’s rankings are to be used as a reference only.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
2. To start a Consensus Ranking, list all competing schools horizontally across the top of your page.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1.
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
3. Now Starting with 1st Place, give one vote from each judge for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list. (For first, obviously their #1 ranked school will get that judge’s vote.)
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
4. Now go back and cross off school C from each judge’s list because they have been awarded 1st Place.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
5. To determine 2nd place, give one vote for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 to finish the Consensus Ranking.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 6.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 11111 6. E
7. Using CONSESUS RANKING, School C would be the winner, followed by A, F, D, B,
and E.
Doing strictly points, School A would have finished first with 444, followed by C-443, F-436, D-418, B-403, and E-374.
Doing the 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10 ranking system, School A would have finished first with 90, followed by C-88, F-86, D-70, B-64, and E-52.
CONSESUS RANKING tries to ensure that each judge has the same weight as any other judge, thus providing a truer consensus, unaffected by large gaps in points.
This is what we were sent along with the rankings. Quite frankly, I can barely do basic math, unless I'm shopping and I need to figure out how much I can spend lol, so this is all terribly confusing to me. It's very thorough, and I'm sure the results turned out exactly as they should have per the scoring system set in place prior to the competition.
Forgive my lack of attention to formatting.
"Bishop Heelan Quad-State Showcase
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The following pages contain a step-by-step guide to our Consensus Ranking or Ordinal scoring system to be used for our finals results at this year’s competition. The Consensus Ranking gets rid of judge point swings and allows for a straight, “majority rules” approach to scoring results. It is our feeling that in the past too many groups have been negatively impacted by a judge who scores on the high or low end of the spectrum. David Fehr, director of Attaché of Clinton, Mississippi, explains it this way: “Olympic Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) simply takes point swings -by actual points or by rank points- out of the equation. For example, with 5 judges, if three of them have School A over School B, School A will finish ahead of School B. Obviously in actual points, this does not necessarily happen.
In ranking systems this does not happen if a judge (or judges) ranks a school much lower than the norm. Example - School A - I, I, I, II, IV School B - II, II, II, I, I
School B would win in this scenario when democratically School A should have finished ahead of School B.
Using Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) takes point swings out of the equation - hopefully keeping talk of "the judge who didn't like us" out of the equation also.
It is a protection for judges (who can truly judge knowing they didn't single-handedly create the outcome).
It is a protection for the directors.
It is a protection for the host contest.
It is a protection for the students.
It is a protection for show choir.
It is a protection for music education.”
Enjoy your day at Heelan and please let us know if there is anything that we can do for you!
Sincerely,
Chris Storm
Director of Choral Activities
Consensus Ranking (Ordinals)
This is an example of how our Consensus Ranking system works for final results at tonight’s competition. This is a step-by-step explanation of how points translate to placements, and then how those placements transfer to a final result. In the event of a tie, the judge’s consensus decision for the best vocal caption award will break a tie for grand champion. All other ties will remain.
1. Give a ranking (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) of competing schools for each judge according to his/her scores. These individual judge’s rankings are to be used as a reference only.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
2. To start a Consensus Ranking, list all competing schools horizontally across the top of your page.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1.
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
3. Now Starting with 1st Place, give one vote from each judge for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list. (For first, obviously their #1 ranked school will get that judge’s vote.)
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
4. Now go back and cross off school C from each judge’s list because they have been awarded 1st Place.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
5. To determine 2nd place, give one vote for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 to finish the Consensus Ranking.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 6.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 11111 6. E
7. Using CONSESUS RANKING, School C would be the winner, followed by A, F, D, B,
and E.
Doing strictly points, School A would have finished first with 444, followed by C-443, F-436, D-418, B-403, and E-374.
Doing the 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10 ranking system, School A would have finished first with 90, followed by C-88, F-86, D-70, B-64, and E-52.
CONSESUS RANKING tries to ensure that each judge has the same weight as any other judge, thus providing a truer consensus, unaffected by large gaps in points.
Well there you go, a perfect simple explanation to it all.
This is what we were sent along with the rankings. Quite frankly, I can barely do basic math, unless I'm shopping and I need to figure out how much I can spend lol, so this is all terribly confusing to me. It's very thorough, and I'm sure the results turned out exactly as they should have per the scoring system set in place prior to the competition.
Forgive my lack of attention to formatting.
"Bishop Heelan Quad-State Showcase
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The following pages contain a step-by-step guide to our Consensus Ranking or Ordinal scoring system to be used for our finals results at this year’s competition. The Consensus Ranking gets rid of judge point swings and allows for a straight, “majority rules” approach to scoring results. It is our feeling that in the past too many groups have been negatively impacted by a judge who scores on the high or low end of the spectrum. David Fehr, director of Attaché of Clinton, Mississippi, explains it this way: “Olympic Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) simply takes point swings -by actual points or by rank points- out of the equation. For example, with 5 judges, if three of them have School A over School B, School A will finish ahead of School B. Obviously in actual points, this does not necessarily happen.
In ranking systems this does not happen if a judge (or judges) ranks a school much lower than the norm. Example - School A - I, I, I, II, IV School B - II, II, II, I, I
School B would win in this scenario when democratically School A should have finished ahead of School B.
Using Ordinals (or Consensus Ranking) takes point swings out of the equation - hopefully keeping talk of "the judge who didn't like us" out of the equation also.
It is a protection for judges (who can truly judge knowing they didn't single-handedly create the outcome).
It is a protection for the directors.
It is a protection for the host contest.
It is a protection for the students.
It is a protection for show choir.
It is a protection for music education.”
Enjoy your day at Heelan and please let us know if there is anything that we can do for you!
Sincerely,
Chris Storm
Director of Choral Activities
Consensus Ranking (Ordinals)
This is an example of how our Consensus Ranking system works for final results at tonight’s competition. This is a step-by-step explanation of how points translate to placements, and then how those placements transfer to a final result. In the event of a tie, the judge’s consensus decision for the best vocal caption award will break a tie for grand champion. All other ties will remain.
1. Give a ranking (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) of competing schools for each judge according to his/her scores. These individual judge’s rankings are to be used as a reference only.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
2. To start a Consensus Ranking, list all competing schools horizontally across the top of your page.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1.
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
3. Now Starting with 1st Place, give one vote from each judge for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list. (For first, obviously their #1 ranked school will get that judge’s vote.)
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 2.
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
4. Now go back and cross off school C from each judge’s list because they have been awarded 1st Place.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
5. To determine 2nd place, give one vote for the highest ranked school left on each judge’s list.
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 3.
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 to finish the Consensus Ranking.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 4.
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 5.
6th Place 6.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 6.
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5
A 93 – 2 A 84 – 3 A 90 – 1 A 88 – 2 A 89 – 2
B 78 – 5 B 77 – 5 B 82 – 4 B 85 – 4 B 81 – 5
C 94 – 1 C 88 – 1 C 89 – 2 C 82 – 6 C 90 – 1
D 85 – 4 D 82 – 4 D 81 – 5 D 86 – 3 D 84 – 4
E 72 – 6 E 70 – 6 E 74 – 6 E 83 – 5 E 75 – 6
F 90 – 3 F 85 – 2 F 86 – 3 F 89 – 1 F 86 – 3
Schools
A B C D E F Winner
1st Place 1 111 1 1. C
2nd Place 111 11 2. A
3rd Place 11111 3. F
4th Place 1 1111 4. D
5th Place 11111 5. B
6th Place 11111 6. E
7. Using CONSESUS RANKING, School C would be the winner, followed by A, F, D, B,
and E.
Doing strictly points, School A would have finished first with 444, followed by C-443, F-436, D-418, B-403, and E-374.
Doing the 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10 ranking system, School A would have finished first with 90, followed by C-88, F-86, D-70, B-64, and E-52.
CONSESUS RANKING tries to ensure that each judge has the same weight as any other judge, thus providing a truer consensus, unaffected by large gaps in points.
I am just confused how the system was applied to give GINW the GC, but then to place Sioux City East ahead of Totino-Grace. The way I thought the Fehr System worked, where the majority of the judges' opinions placed groups, would have had this:
GC: SCE
1RU: GINW
2RU: Totino
The system you just described makes sense for why GINW got the GC, but doesn't really explain how SCE finished ahead of Totino. Did Totino get placed as 2RU because four judges had them in third? Or was it because SCE had two 1st place votes and Totino only had one?
Whatever system was applied for use in this competition seems to me, at the moment, to be a little overly complex. But maybe I'm just missing something
I am just confused how the system was applied to give GINW the GC, but then to place Sioux City East ahead of Totino-Grace. The way I thought the Fehr System worked, where the majority of the judges' opinions placed groups, would have had this:
GC: SCE
1RU: GINW
2RU: Totino
The system you just described makes sense for why GINW got the GC, but doesn't really explain how SCE finished ahead of Totino. Did Totino get placed as 2RU because four judges had them in third? Or was it because SCE had two 1st place votes and Totino only had one?
Whatever system was applied for use in this competition seems to me, at the moment, to be a little overly complex. But maybe I'm just missing something
SC East was given 2nd because they had 2 first place votes. I can't explain the system very well myself. I'm sure there is someone out there that can. If not, I will do my best to find an explanation.
I am just confused how the system was applied to give GINW the GC, but then to place Sioux City East ahead of Totino-Grace. The way I thought the Fehr System worked, where the majority of the judges' opinions placed groups, would have had this:
GC: SCE
1RU: GINW
2RU: Totino
The system you just described makes sense for why GINW got the GC, but doesn't really explain how SCE finished ahead of Totino. Did Totino get placed as 2RU because four judges had them in third? Or was it because SCE had two 1st place votes and Totino only had one?
Whatever system was applied for use in this competition seems to me, at the moment, to be a little overly complex. But maybe I'm just missing something
I am also not sure if Fehr System was used, which as I understand it puts a group in the position that the majority of the judges' rankings has them at was used, if the results turned out this way.
If that system was used:
GINW is 1RU (3 of 5 judges have them there)
Totino-Grace is 2RU (4 of 5 judges)
Millard West is 5RU (3 of 5 judges)
So shouldn't the results look like this?
GC: Sioux City East
1RU: GINW
2RU: Totino-Grace
3RU: Mitchell
4RU: Papillion
5RU: Millard West
Of course I could be way off on how I think the Fehr System is used but that was how I thought I understood it to be.
I am sure we can get a complete explanation soon, but I don't think this is the correct application of the Fehr system. GINW and SCE both recieved 2 1st-place votes, so it makes sense to then go to the other 3 votes. GINW remaining votes were 2nd, 2nd, and 2nd, while SCE's remaining votes were 2nd, 5th, 5th. Those are clearly different and would give GINW the GC from my opinion.
Also, I don't think the panel's voting is too odd. GINW (range of 2), Totino-Grace (range of 3), Millard West (range of 3), and Papillion (range of 3) all had reasonably consistent rankings. Mitchell had one placing that was inconsistent, but not completely outrageous. The weirder one is Sioux City East, but given their type of show this year I am not surprised that certain judges took it certain ways.
Baker:
1) GINW
2) Mitchell
3) Totino-Grace
4) Papillion
5) Sioux City East
6) Millard West
Else:
1) Totino-Grace
2) GINW
3) Mitchell
4) Millard West
5) Sioux City East
6) Papillion
Hibbard:
1) Sioux City East
2) GINW
3) Totino-Grace
4) Papillion
5) Millard West
6) Mitchell
Huth:
1) Sioux City East
2) GINW
3) Totino-Grace
4) Mitchell
5) Papillion
6) Millard West
Kimmel:
1) GINW
2) Sioux City East
3) Totino-Grace
4) Mitchell
5) Papillion
6) Millard West
Overall Rankings Points
1) GINW = 8
2) Totino-Grace = 13
3) Sioux City East = 14
4) Mitchell = 19
5) Papillion = 24
6) Millard West = 28
This is really weird. Quite the split panel.
I am also not sure if Fehr System was used, which as I understand it puts a group in the position that the majority of the judges' rankings has them at was used, if the results turned out this way.
If that system was used:
GINW is 1RU (3 of 5 judges have them there)
Totino-Grace is 2RU (4 of 5 judges)
Millard West is 5RU (3 of 5 judges)
So shouldn't the results look like this?
GC: Sioux City East
1RU: GINW
2RU: Totino-Grace
3RU: Mitchell
4RU: Papillion
5RU: Millard West
Of course I could be way off on how I think the Fehr System is used but that was how I thought I understood it to be.
That is clearly not the debate at this point in time, it is how Totino got 3rd with better rank points. I am not entirely sure but I think the Fehr system was in use which would put Totino in 3rd because they had 4 3rd place votes and Sioux City had 2 first place and 1 second place that would put them in front. I could be wrong but I think that is how it worked itself out. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that, it has happened before.
John Bone is exactly right... Mr. Johnson explained it to us in class today, and that is how they decided the rankings.
On our ranking system, Grand Island Northwest and Sioux City East tied. Their finals placement was decided by the daytime rankings.
That is clearly not the debate at this point in time, it is how Totino got 3rd with better rank points. I am not entirely sure but I think the Fehr system was in use which would put Totino in 3rd because they had 4 3rd place votes and Sioux City had 2 first place and 1 second place that would put them in front. I could be wrong but I think that is how it worked itself out. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that, it has happened before.
if the math is correct (which it looks like it is) company of singers got a higher average ranking than sioux city. 2.6 < 2.8. so why didn't totino get 2nd place????
myself being from GINW (i'm in the JV group bella voce), i also thought that their daytime performance was way better than the final performance. so idk about the rouge judge. i think i overheard shack saying that it was about 2 points between us and 2nd place (sorry whoever i forgot already). i know they modded "my song" for the soloists, but thats all i know they did for the show. the rest of the scedule anyways is... Lincoln southwest, NCDA (which is kinda sad we go there for some reason), and Grand Island Sr. High. for Prep groups i know that we won by (what i've heard not for a fact) 50 points. i could be telling a massive lie but idk for sure. and the dance off which we had our own johnny gonzolez dance for us. it was a great competition over all, but everybody has to remember that people do this for the experience and most people this is their sport. so congratulations to all.
Omaha Westside Competition Of Excellence 2009
" border="0" alt="huh.gif" />