Electronic Scores

newtwoq · Oct 21, 2014

I’m not sure if this is a “For the Board” thread or not, if so, mods please feel free to move it. I’m also not sure if this has been discussed before, so if so, please let me know.

With the new KCBS scoring system that is now computer driven. Why can’t teams get their scores electronically in an Excel format? It is my understanding that if you write to KCBS you can get the summery page electronically, but what I would think is more useful is to have the entire score packet in an electronic format, that is accessible for every team after the contest. This would quickly and easily allow you to mine all sorts of interesting and potentially useful information from the scores. Some information would be; pivot tables based on table and where each table scored teams across all four meats, trending analysis for your team across contests, trending analysis of top ten scores or top five scores across contests, etc. With the new scoring system, there is literally a TON of information readily at our finger tips, it just isn’t presented in a format that is easy to work with.

Thanks in advance.

csmcvey · Oct 21, 2014

Just recently completed my first comp and I took my first page details, plugged them into Excel and did some analysis.

I then had the same thoughts as you, why not take the detailed scoring for every team and run some analyses over that data set. And then if you had every comp you could start to come up with trending and the ability to compare scores across states / regions.

IMO, I don't see KCBS opening this up b/c I think it would harm them in the long run. They don't want the competition public to be able to do these types of analyses and come to some conclusions that could potentially harm KCBS.

For example with this data one could compare the deviations in judging from one area to the next, from this one could arrive @ conclusions like 'Area X has more consistent judging then area Y.' KCBS wants no part of that

Gowan · Oct 21, 2014

First a little backstory to help understand this post:
***
I am the de facto scorekeeper for the Georgia BBQ Championship since I wrote the application that tracks the GBC standings online. For those who don't know, the GBC is an organization of KCBS contest organizers in our state. As such you would expect us to have a close relationship with KCBS since our membership is a subset of their best paying constituency.
***

Several times I have spoken with Reps about getting contest results in an electronic format. Prior to the adoption of KCBScore, this wasn't really practical because of the lack of a unique identifier (ID number) for each team. Even if you had the data in a file, you still had to manually go through it because there was no way to be sure if "The Smokin' Butts", "Smoking Butts" or ""Smokin the Butts" were the same team or not for the purpose of compiling points over a year's time.

Once KCBScore came out, I tried again. At first we had success because the software did have reporting features that would produce a spreadsheet compatible format. However, there were no reports that included any type of unique ID number that would permit the automatic tabulating of cumulative scores. Such a number was there in the form of head cook's KCBS membership number, but it did not appear on the same report as the results. So I took the obvious next step and asked my Reps if they would inquire to the powers that be if it was possible to build a custom report that KCBScore could produce that would enable organizations like the GBC to easily import contest results.

Eventually the answer came back that the KCBS Board had decided that KCBScore data was proprietary and Reps were not permitted to give out contest results in any format other than the printed reports or their PDF representations.

So there you have it. I can't say *why* KCBS has taken this stance, but this is the reason why you won't see anybody analyzing results data unless they take the time to manually re-enter all of the numbers themselves.

Smoke'n Ice · Oct 21, 2014

See my post in the for the board section. Due to a rough analysis of the brisket scores from the American Royal via excel spread sheet generated with pdf nitro I found that there is a major question on the validity of the actual data entered. There appears to be no error checking algorithms in the program and unless someone is doing an actual check post data entry, it can and was entered wrong for that category at the Royal and I would be afraid to see the rest of the sheets done this way.

This may be why they don't want it available in electronic format!

MikeJ65 · Oct 21, 2014

Smoke'n Ice said:
See my post in the for the board section. Due to a rough analysis of the brisket scores from the American Royal via excel spread sheet generated with pdf nitro I found that there is a major question on the validity of the actual data entered. There appears to be no error checking algorithms in the program and unless someone is doing an actual check post data entry, it can and was entered wrong for that category at the Royal and I would be afraid to see the rest of the sheets done this way.

This may be why they don't want it available in electronic format!

Looking at the results, I think what happened is that there is a minor bug in the code that causes two tables to receive the same blind renumber. I'm not sure if it is a an issue with > 100 tables or something else, but it is possible that table 2 and table 102 (for example) both got blinded to the same number. It's a bug and should be fixed, but I wouldn't conclude that anyone got the wrong score.

Smoke'n Ice · Oct 22, 2014

MikeJ65 said:
Looking at the results, I think what happened is that there is a minor bug in the code that causes two tables to receive the same blind renumber. I'm not sure if it is a an issue with > 100 tables or something else, but it is possible that table 2 and table 102 (for example) both got blinded to the same number. It's a bug and should be fixed, but I wouldn't conclude that anyone got the wrong score.

A few of the quick issues are as follows:
51 judged 5
115 judged 4
127 judged 4
191 judged 4
482 Judged 5
522 judged 11
518 judged 12
780 judged 5
797 judged 12
801 judged 5
853 judged 11
857 judged 12
913 judged 5

This is just a cursory glance while having coffee this morning and there many more examples of the above.

It is pure and simple data entry error not checked by the program or humans. Without the raw judge sheets there is no way of knowing if actual score entry was fraught with the same type of keying errors but given what can be seen, you draw your own conclusions.

I really believe that someone should take a long hard look at this portion of the contest and come up with some possible solutions. The one that comes to mind is supply actual copies of the judging sheets to the cooks via electronic format with the blind info redacted and let us decide for ourselves if we actually got what we were told.

ModelMaker · Oct 22, 2014

Y'all need to find something to keep yourselves busy. This very question was kicked around this weekend at a contest and NOBODY wants their scores on their phone.
They want papers in their hands after awards so they can stand around and p*ss & moan about the judges.
If you want an electronic report with pie charts and graphs and supposed code flaws.. do it yourself at home.
Just sayin.
Ed

newtwoq · Oct 22, 2014

ModelMaker said:
Y'all need to find something to keep yourselves busy. This very question was kicked around this weekend at a contest and NOBODY wants their scores on their phone.
They want papers in their hands after awards so they can stand around and p*ss & moan about the judges.
If you want an electronic report with pie charts and graphs and supposed code flaws.. do it yourself at home.
Just sayin.
Ed

This may be true in your neck of the woods, but may not extrapolate well to the rest of the country. Some are into data and analytics which would be much easier with electronic scores. It's a YMMV thing.

Jorge · Oct 22, 2014

CivilWarBBQ said:
First a little backstory to help understand this post:
***
I am the de facto scorekeeper for the Georgia BBQ Championship since I wrote the application that tracks the GBC standings online. For those who don't know, the GBC is an organization of KCBS contest organizers in our state. As such you would expect us to have a close relationship with KCBS since our membership is a subset of their best paying constituency.
***

Several times I have spoken with Reps about getting contest results in an electronic format. Prior to the adoption of KCBScore, this wasn't really practical because of the lack of a unique identifier (ID number) for each team. Even if you had the data in a file, you still had to manually go through it because there was no way to be sure if "The Smokin' Butts", "Smoking Butts" or ""Smokin the Butts" were the same team or not for the purpose of compiling points over a year's time.

Once KCBScore came out, I tried again. At first we had success because the software did have reporting features that would produce a spreadsheet compatible format. However, there were no reports that included any type of unique ID number that would permit the automatic tabulating of cumulative scores. Such a number was there in the form of head cook's KCBS membership number, but it did not appear on the same report as the results. So I took the obvious next step and asked my Reps if they would inquire to the powers that be if it was possible to build a custom report that KCBScore could produce that would enable organizations like the GBC to easily import contest results.

Eventually the answer came back that the KCBS Board had decided that KCBScore data was proprietary and Reps were not permitted to give out contest results in any format other than the printed reports or their PDF representations.

So there you have it. I can't say *why* KCBS has taken this stance, but this is the reason why you won't see anybody analyzing results data unless they take the time to manually re-enter all of the numbers themselves.

Was there ever any discussion of sharing the development cost? Yes, I know what it should realistically cost.

Now that Score data is going to be analayzed, when the contract is signed, there should be a stable format. If the regional organizations got together, and could agree on how they'd like the data I think you'd have something the board would listen to. I know New York has their Cup series. Georgia has theirs.

The other side of the coin, is that you could scrape KCBS.us and get results for free.

tdwalker · Oct 22, 2014

From the cook's point of view, can you tell me what the advantage of new scoring sheets and possible "electronic scores" are?

I understand some benefits from KCBS, including analysis that may provide for better judge training and consistency. However, the only 'benefit' I see for the cooks is for them to determine if they were on a "table of death." Would you really avoid a region, or even a particular contest because of the analysis?

I'm not trying to stir the pot, I am really searching for some understanding here.

cpw · Oct 22, 2014

tdwalker said:
From the cook's point of view, can you tell me what the advantage of new scoring sheets and possible "electronic scores" are?

I understand some benefits from KCBS, including analysis that may provide for better judge training and consistency. However, the only 'benefit' I see for the cooks is for them to determine if they were on a "table of death." Would you really avoid a region, or even a particular contest because of the analysis?

I'm not trying to stir the pot, I am really searching for some understanding here.

I think if you cooked enough contests in different regions, you WOULD stay away form certain contests in certain areas if you had statistics to back you up.

Those same stats could also be sent to the KCBS BOD to show them in a concrete way what's going on with the scores so that they would hopefully address the issue.

DawgPhan · Oct 22, 2014

Jorge said:
Was there ever any discussion of sharing the development cost? Yes, I know what it should realistically cost.

Now that Score data is going to be analayzed, when the contract is signed, there should be a stable format. If the regional organizations got together, and could agree on how they'd like the data I think you'd have something the board would listen to. I know New York has their Cup series. Georgia has theirs.

The other side of the coin, is that you could scrape KCBS.us and get results for free.

OCR and screen scraping are your answer for everything. Both are terrible sources for data, but you probably know that.

Secondly screen scraping is not free.

KCBS should provide a CSV of all the data. Let everyone play around with the data and see what they can come up with. Could be really neat.

Jorge · Oct 22, 2014

DawgPhan said:
OCR and screen scraping are your answer for everything. Both are terrible sources for data, but you probably know that.

Secondly screen scraping is not free.

KCBS should provide a CSV of all the data. Let everyone play around with the data and see what they can come up with. Could be really neat.

It's a tool. I also understand that you'd have liked to have had the data provided to you at no cost for your site as well.

If you'd like to continue feel free to shoot me a PM. I'll get back to you ASAP, which should be early next week.

DawgPhan · Oct 22, 2014

Jorge said:
It's a tool. I also understand that you'd have liked to have had the data provided to you at no cost for your site as well.

If you'd like to continue feel free to shoot me a PM. I'll get back to you ASAP, which should be early next week.

yes I understand that they are tools...tools of last resort and much headache.

its like if I asked you to paint a house and handed you a ladle. Far from the best way.

Not really sure what I need to continue with you?

Jorge · Oct 22, 2014

DawgPhan said:
yes I understand that they are tools...tools of last resort and much headache.

its like if I asked you to paint a house and handed you a ladle. Far from the best way.

Not really sure what I need to continue with you?

Nevermind, you win.

DawgPhan · Oct 22, 2014

Jorge said:
Nevermind, you win.

didisea · Oct 22, 2014

I don't think that a team that enters a KCBS contest has to have a KCBS membership number, so that would still leave the problem of team's names being entered differently, no?

Weberlamp · Oct 22, 2014

tdwalker said:
From the cook's point of view, can you tell me what the advantage of new scoring sheets and possible "electronic scores" are?

I understand some benefits from KCBS, including analysis that may provide for better judge training and consistency. However, the only 'benefit' I see for the cooks is for them to determine if they were on a "table of death." Would you really avoid a region, or even a particular contest because of the analysis?

I'm not trying to stir the pot, I am really searching for some understanding here.

As you compete in enough contests you would begin to amass a lot of data points with your scores. If all of those data points could be kept electronically in a database, we could begin to develop queries and reports to pull out information about that data. You could see trending over time, correlate good or bad scores with regions, times of the year, even pull in weather and other factors that might factor in to your scores.

I agree that this is getting pretty far from throwing some ribs on the grill, grabbing a beer and letting the go, but we are all shelling out thousands of dollars a year competing, I would like to try and improve and if electronic scores could assist in that, it is worth discussing.

Gowan · Oct 23, 2014

Jorge said:
Was there ever any discussion of sharing the development cost? Yes, I know what it should realistically cost.

Now that Score data is going to be analayzed, when the contract is signed, there should be a stable format. If the regional organizations got together, and could agree on how they'd like the data I think you'd have something the board would listen to. I know New York has their Cup series. Georgia has theirs.

The other side of the coin, is that you could scrape KCBS.us and get results for free.

Interesting. I'd not heard of this "contract to analyze". Can you share more information thereon?

As for scraping results off the KCBS site, that doesn't help, because again there is no Team ID number shown. Having that unique identifier is of paramount importance; without that you have to do so much manual work matching team names that any gains from importing data are completely lost. Same thing for OCR - if you can't trust the data accuracy, it's no good.

Thanks for your comments Jorge. It's helpful to have an inkling of what's going on behind the scenes at KCBS.

MikeJ65 · Oct 23, 2014

Smoke'n Ice said:
A few of the quick issues are as follows:
51 judged 5
115 judged 4
127 judged 4
191 judged 4
482 Judged 5
522 judged 11
518 judged 12
780 judged 5
797 judged 12
801 judged 5
853 judged 11
857 judged 12
913 judged 5

This is just a cursory glance while having coffee this morning and there many more examples of the above.

It is pure and simple data entry error not checked by the program or humans. Without the raw judge sheets there is no way of knowing if actual score entry was fraught with the same type of keying errors but given what can be seen, you draw your own conclusions.

I really believe that someone should take a long hard look at this portion of the contest and come up with some possible solutions. The one that comes to mind is supply actual copies of the judging sheets to the cooks via electronic format with the blind info redacted and let us decide for ourselves if we actually got what we were told.

If you look at the results for pork, ribs, and chicken, you will find that the same five tables had 'double' entries: 10-12 per table. Clearly not a data entry error, but either something in the renumbering code or 5 original table numbers were repeated.

At a huge contest like the open, some tables getting four entries will happen. You don't know how many entries will be turned in, so it is impossible to distribute 5 or 6 entries to each table unless you hold a good number of trays until the end.

Electronic Scores

is one Smokin' Farker

Knows what a fatty is.

is One Chatty Farker

is one Smokin' Farker

is one Smokin' Farker

is one Smokin' Farker

Quintessential Chatty Farker

is one Smokin' Farker

somebody shut me the fark up.

Full Fledged Farker

Babbling Farker

is Blowin Smoke!

somebody shut me the fark up.

is Blowin Smoke!

somebody shut me the fark up.

is Blowin Smoke!

Take a breath!

Knows what a fatty is.

is One Chatty Farker

is one Smokin' Farker

Similar threads