That's basically what is known as the "Fair Fehr" system, as it was first promoted by Clinton's diretor, Dave Fehr. I prefer either raw scores or the FF system. Those are the two best in my opinion.
Actually it's the "Fehr Fair" system. You pronounced it correctly, however.
that is why you go off of total number of first place votes. that way the 5th place vote doesnt kill a group that was clearly the favorite among all the other judges
That's basically what is known as the "Fair Fehr" system, as it was first promoted by Clinton's diretor, Dave Fehr. I prefer either raw scores or the FF system. Those are the two best in my opinion.
Even then there are some competitions where some judges rankings throw stuff off
For example at SE Polk 2008 we recieved 4 first places and one fifth, whereas Dowling Catholic recieved 4 second places and one first. Or at Waukee last year we had 3 first places, one fourth, and two sixths.
that is why you go off of total number of first place votes. that way the 5th place vote doesnt kill a group that was clearly the favorite among all the other judges
Even then there are some competitions where some judges rankings throw stuff off
For example at SE Polk 2008 we recieved 4 first places and one fifth, whereas Dowling Catholic recieved 4 second places and one first. Or at Waukee last year we had 3 first places, one fourth, and two sixths.
This is going to be a lengthy post, I apologize.
Using rankings prevents one judge from having an unfairly-large amount of influence. Let us say we have a competition between 3 show choirs; The Awesomes, The Best-Evers, and The Champions. This show choir competition also has 3 judges. Judge 3 has radically different opinions than the other judges.
Using Rankings:
Judge 1:
1st - The Awesomes
2nd - The Best-Evers
3rd - The Champions
Judge 2:
1st - The Awesomes
2nd - The Best-Evers
3rd - The Champions
Judge 3:
1st - The Champions
2nd - The Best-Evers
3rd - The Awesomes
Judge 3 has given The Awesomes a considerably different ranking than the other judges, same goes for the Champions. Situations like this are often considered as one judge 'sinking' a show choir by giving them a considerably different ranking than most others would give them. However at least this judge's opinions are weighted the same amount as any other judge. Now let us go back and look at the raw scores that determined these rankings.
Using Raw Scores:
Judge 1:
The Awesomes - 90/100
The Best-Evers - 85/100
The Champions - 80/100
Judge 2:
The Awesomes - 90/100
The Best-Evers - 85/100
The Champions - 80/100
Judge 3:
The Champions - 90/100
The Best-Evers - 85/100
The Awesomes - 5/100
We can again see that Judge 3 had a radically different opinion of The Awesomes when compared to other groups. However this time the judge's opinions are not going to be given equal weights. Using raw scores, judges may place larger gaps between groups than is possible with rankings.
Score Summary:
Rankings (these can be converted into placements are a variety of different ways)
The Awesomes: 1st, 1st, 3rd
The Best-Evers: 2nd, 2nd, 2nd
The Champions: 3rd, 3rd, 1st
Raw Scores
The Awesomes: 185 pts
The Best-Evers: 255 pts
The Champions: 250 pts
Using rankings, the Awesomes either were unaffected by Judge 3's views or were perhaps moved to second place. However, when using raw scores, Judge 3 was able to drop The Awesomes into last place by a large margin.
Now surely any judge who did something as extreme as the example above would not be invited to judge at another competition. It is likely both unethical and motivated by something malicious. However less extreme examples and non-malicious of this can happen quite often. Some judges have the top groups separated by 5 points. Another judge has the same groups separated by 20 points. This just depends on their judging philosophy and standards. Raw scores allow that one judge to have a larger influence over the final rankings than the other judges. It can easily be argued that there is merit in letting a judge put varying amounts of space between groups (Group A is barely ahead of Group B, Group C is the next-best but way worse than the other two), however I don't think this should be done at the expense of giving judges equal weights.
If a competition really wants to use raw scores, I would likely try to sway them to use a method where you standardize all the judges' scores. If one judge has a spread between first and last of 20 and the other judges have a spread between first and last of 5, go ahead and standardize it to 100 let's say. Then within this framework you can let judges' relative scores between groups work their way into the placements. It may not be perfect, but it at least helps to keep one judge from having a larger influence on the results than the others.
Using the rankings system eliminates the possibility ofone judge screwing up the rankings by low balling 1 group
Even then there are some competitions where some judges rankings throw stuff off
For example at SE Polk 2008 we recieved 4 first places and one fifth, whereas Dowling Catholic recieved 4 second places and one first. Or at Waukee last year we had 3 first places, one fourth, and two sixths.
I also have heard that it was determined by rankings, and that the school with the highest scores, did not win. This seems to happen a lot, why don't they just start using the raw scores?
Using the rankings system eliminates the possibility ofone judge screwing up the rankings by low balling 1 group
I also have heard that it was determined by rankings, and that the school with the highest scores, did not win. This seems to happen a lot, why don't they just start using the raw scores?
From what I heard from people in CSI, they had at least 1 third place and were actually somewhat close to Ankeny in finals
Three different groups got first places is what I was told.
I totally see ATSC on level with FC, I wasn't saying at all that they weren't. They look great on stage, and I think the shows are pretty comparable. I think there was a clear difference between ATSC and FC, vs Ankeny though. It would have been a great show to see.
Ankeny did take Choreography from not just FC Singers, but everyone here. And the scoring was rather close between the top three groups. So I am respectfully disagreeing with your opinion that they're on completely different levels.
I totally see ATSC on level with FC, I wasn't saying at all that they weren't. They look great on stage, and I think the shows are pretty comparable. I think there was a clear difference between ATSC and FC, vs Ankeny though. It would have been a great show to see.
So I've been told that FC Singers will not be attending Fame Indianapolis because of Prom and Concert choir finals being on that day. If it were one thing, maybe, but the 2 combined makes it an easy decision, considering FC beat Heritage Christian earlier this year. Hope to hear something new at ISSMA Concert!
I totally see ATSC on level with FC, I wasn't saying at all that they weren't. They look great on stage, and I think the shows are pretty comparable. I think there was a clear difference between ATSC and FC, vs Ankeny though. It would have been a great show to see.
So I've been told that FC Singers will not be attending Fame Indianapolis because of Prom and Concert choir finals being on that day. If it were one thing, maybe, but the 2 combined makes it an easy decision, considering FC beat Heritage Christian earlier this year. Hope to hear something new at ISSMA Concert!
Thanks, I made those changes to my post up top. I'm sure it was a combination of their diction and my old ears.
Thanks for linking the show Ethan. Just a note on that video, the sound quality isn't great. I can vouch that it sounded amazing in person. Don't let the sound quality on the video make you think less of ATSC.
Always noted that videos suck compared to being there. They show only a small section, making us miss the big picture the judges see. And they only catch sound from a few microphones, not from the acoustics of the building that the judges hear. Videos are terrible to be honest, but they're all we have some time. So watch with caution
Just a quick note, the best female soloist was Kara Kearley and the best female performer was Mara Cover. Sometimes, the announcers need to take a note from the show choirs and work on their diction. xD
Thanks, I made those changes to my post up top. I'm sure it was a combination of their diction and my old ears.
Thanks for linking the show Ethan. Just a note on that video, the sound quality isn't great. I can vouch that it sounded amazing in person. Don't let the sound quality on the video make you think less of ATSC.
Just a quick note, the best female soloist was Kara Kearley and the best female performer was Mara Cover. Sometimes, the announcers need to take a note from the show choirs and work on their diction. xD
hahah boo now I want to know what the unedited post said. Guess I'm too late.
I told FC I thought they should change their last 2 numbers, or at least the closer before Indianapolis championships if they wanted to be anywhere near the top three, and re-ignite their show with some energy, because right now it falls flat after the ballad. The first 3 numbers are great, and I think easily compete with WWS. Not so much the closer.
I guess people thought that me saying FC has run out of steam, also meant I was saying that FC should have won. That isn't the case.
FAME Orlando 2011
