rec.autos.simulators

by **Rob** » Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:22:08

Janne Liiman found the answer to a question I asked a while ago: why is my
107% rank in the 200's when my overall handicap ranking is in the 500's?

Turns out the 107% relative ranking table includes drivers with missing lap
times (i.e. no GPL Rank). If you look at the first driver (Luis, from
Spain - sorry Luis) you'll see what I mean. He has no Ring time, and hence
no handicap ranking.

Uwe and gang: any chance you could fix this? Thanks!

by **Wosc** » Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:53:09

It could also be due to your spread of times. Gaining a few tenths at a
shorter track will yeild a better increase in 107% ranking than gaining a
few tenths at a longer track. So the nurburgring is weighted less and Monza
is weighted more. SOO if you have a poor time at nurburg but good times
elsewhere (like myself), you will rank lower (better) in the 107% than in
the handicap rankings.

I am not sure how your explaination makes sense. You are saying that since
a person's rankings are included in the 107% ranking, then you get a better
rank? In theory, wouldn't it be the opposite? How is including more people
in one ranking going to make your rank better?

JB

by **Rob** » Fri, 12 Jan 2001 06:01:55

Oops, you're right...

Well I originally thought it wouldn't, it would make my rank worse, i.e.
more accurate. Now I think it's best if I just slink away before I embarrass
myself any further (:

by **Wosc** » Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:13:52

I think someone asked this just a little further down and they said that it
doesn't include all the drivers. I also noticed this how many of the people
that are at the top of the handicap rankings are not on the 107% and it must
only calculate your rating if you physically go to the 107% rating page.
That is the best explaination that I have heard.

JB

> > I am not sure how your explaination makes sense. You are saying that
> since
> > a person's rankings are included in the 107% ranking, then you get a
> better
> > rank? In theory, wouldn't it be the opposite?
> Oops, you're right...

> > How is including more people
> > in one ranking going to make your rank better?

> Well I originally thought it wouldn't, it would make my rank worse, i.e.
> more accurate. Now I think it's best if I just slink away before I
embarrass
> myself any further (:

by **Uwe Schuerka** » Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:06:34

>Turns out the 107% relative ranking table includes drivers with missing lap
>times (i.e. no GPL Rank). If you look at the first driver (Luis, from
>Spain - sorry Luis) you'll see what I mean. He has no Ring time, and hence
>no handicap ranking.

>Uwe and gang: any chance you could fix this? Thanks!

Yeah sorry, the 107% was a quick hack (like most of the rest of
GPLRank), so I guess it still has some bugs. Thanks for
pointing it out, Ill what what I can do. For now, just ignore
them and use your fingers to count ;-)

Cheers,

uwe

--
Uwe Schuerkamp http://www.schuerkamp.de/
GnuPG Fingerprint: 2093 20B8 B861 9358 A356 B01A E145 9249 5D27 33EA
PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

by **Dave Henri** » Sat, 13 Jan 2001 12:10:43

ok so what happens if the number is greater than 3?
dave henrie :) :) :) ;)

rec.autos.simulators

GPLRank 107% relative ranking: an answer

GPLRank 107% relative ranking: an answer

GPLRank 107% relative ranking: an answer

GPLRank 107% relative ranking: an answer

GPLRank 107% relative ranking: an answer

GPLRank 107% relative ranking: an answer

GPLRank 107% relative ranking: an answer