GPLRank 107% relative ranking: an answer

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!

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

"Wosco" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VY376.14143$[email hidden]... > > I am not sure how your explaination makes sense. You are saying thatsince > a person's rankings are included in the 107% ranking, then you get abetter > 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 (:

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 "Rob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:75476.8700$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> "Wosco" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:VY376.14143$[email hidden]... > > > > 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 (: > >

In article <Qv376.8688$[email hidden]>, Rob <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >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, I�ll 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

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >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, I�ll what what I can do. For now, just ignore > them and use your fingers to count ;-) > > Cheers, > > uwe

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