garfield Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Einstein tried to do it.....on the beach! /> Oh! Touche, Plan! Good one! +++ And I hope like he11 that they beat the pants off of your team! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Now you aren't suggesting he is a 13 stroke troll are you? Oh, no. I think his beliefs are completely straightforward. Furthermore, I believe his views are probably correct as they relate to optimizing a production line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Oh, no. I think his beliefs are completely straightforward. Furthermore, I believe his views are probably correct as they relate to optimizing a production line. Yep. He comes across like most engineers I know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13strokeroll Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) Oh, no. I think his beliefs are completely straightforward. Furthermore, I believe his views are probably correct as they relate to optimizing a production line. Partially correct. I manage the managers of inspectors that assess aesthetic criteria on large ticket items. Perhaps I should have also referenced Pirsig's notes on the study of the inherent combination of science and art to transcend preconceived notions of quality? Edited July 25, 2013 by 13strokeroll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Partially correct. I manage the managers of inspectors that assess aesthetic criteria on large ticket items. Perhaps I should have also referenced Pirsig's notes on the study of the inherent combination of science and art to transcend preconceived notions of quality? Appeal to Authority and obfuscation. None of the metrics in the pages you cited discussed the determination of which of several biases is responsible for the demonstrated error. Every page was about simply determining that an error has occurred, typically because two judgments diverge. That's it. The closest the author comes is discussing the forces that might cause a medical intern to attempt to match the assessments of a mentor. He recommends (not surprisingly) keeping their assessments secret until they are complete. In no way does he discuss (in those pages) how to distinguish between different types of human bias, such as memory-induced bias (bias toward previous results), rank-order bias (bias in favor of the order of performance), patriotism bias (bias based on the judges own region), and reputation bias (bias based on, well, reputation). Now, I would suggest that what most of us are calling slotting is really the memory induced bias. Essentially biasing in favor of the judges expectations from prior shows. However, the OP (tupac) seemed to be talking about the reputation bias in his clarification. He says that Cavies will be moved ahead of Madison (presumably because that's where they "belong"). That's not based on recent scores, but on their history. Interestingly, the bias you first discussed would be some kind of clustering bias in which the corps are grouped artificially. I couldn't find that bias in the articles that I can find, but I would think it's out there somewhere. Is this what you mean by slotting? Maybe we've been talking about different things. If so, we can't conclude it is happening, because we don't know what forces could cause performing arts groups to actually cluster in real performance levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Every page was about simply determining that an error has occurred, typically because two judgments diverge. That's it. For whatever it's worth, the only time we can test this is at regionals and finals in the GE categories when you have two judges rating the same caption. Comparing scores between performances is impossible. Someone somewhere suggested double panels for every caption, and I think that would be a good idea for finals week, or at least for finals. If you double-paneled all the shows all year and rotated judges carefully, you might start approaching enough comparable data to start making assessments about slotting etc, but only if you assume all the judges aren't in on the deal. Unfortunately, that'd be outrageously expensive. Also, can you imagine having three additional field judges scurrying around? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) Technology is getting cheaper. Perhaps we need to mike every performer, and have cameras attached to the uniform that capture feet, arms, etc. The mikes wouldn't go to the sound board, but instead they and the cameras would all be sending signals to a control center in the press box. Instead of having the judges on the field, running to whatever they want to look at and influenced by the drill, staging, what they're most interested in, etc; instead you sit the field judges in isolation booths in front of a screen with headphones on and a computer randomly controls what they see and/or hear to fairly assess a truly random sample of performers at truly random times. Edited July 25, 2013 by skywhopper 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c mor Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Technology is getting cheaper. Perhaps we need to mike every performer, and have cameras attached to the uniform that capture feet, arms, etc. The mikes wouldn't go to the sound board, but instead they and the cameras would all be sending signals to a control center in the press box. Instead of having the judges on the field, running to whatever they want to look at and influenced by the drill, staging, what they're most interested in, etc; instead you sit the field judges in isolation booths in front of a screen with headphones on and a computer randomly controls what they see and/or hear to fairly assess a truly random sample of performers at truly random times. :music:/> Great idea!! We should also place electronic triggers on drum heads linked to a computer in the box to measure the exactness of every beat played. Anything outside of a specified parameter would be an error. We could call it a "tic." :smile:/> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadScout80 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Great idea!! We should also place electronic triggers on drum heads linked to a computer in the box to measure the exactness of every beat played. Anything outside of a specified parameter would be an error. We could call it a "tic." :smile:/>/> And the computer could handle the scoring such that each corps would start with the same score and then for each tic (as you are calling it), the computer deduct some set amount.(0.01?, 0.1?, we'd have to experiment probably) from that starting total. This souinds like it has some merit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c mor Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 And the computer could handle the scoring such that each corps would start with the same score and then for each tic (as you are calling it), the computer deduct some set amount.(0.01?, 0.1?, we'd have to experiment probably) from that starting total. This souinds like it has some merit. I han't thought of that, but that certainly sounds reasonable. Alternatively, since these, so called, "tics" would now be objectively obtained, we may be able to simply score in ordinal order, fewest = 1, next = 2, etc. and link some sort of appropriate scale to add to the overall score. This is fun. :rolleyes:/> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.