PB event tickbox - Why has it disappeared?
6 watchers
Dec 2012
11:49pm, 3 Dec 2012
17,711 posts
|
SPR
Surely the tickbox isn't seen as obsolete?
|
Dec 2012
7:57am, 4 Dec 2012
12,009 posts
|
fetcheveryone
After eight years of testing, I decided it was easier to un-PB those races that needed it, rather than to have to correct the ones that were falsely marked as non-PB. Feedback any that should be switched off. Ta. 
|
Dec 2012
8:16am, 4 Dec 2012
3,926 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Really?! Lots of races I do are "non-pb" so I found the ability to have that option quite useful.
|
|
Dec 2012
9:30am, 4 Dec 2012
17,712 posts
|
SPR
Ok, I assume this is because some (new users?) thought a non-PB race was one that they weren't aiming to PB in, or was too hilly for PB? What happens in the case of conflicts Are you able to make it so that road and track default to PB and anything else (XC, Fell) defaults to non-PB? |
|
Dec 2012
9:47am, 4 Dec 2012
12,010 posts
|
fetcheveryone
I tried for a while making it so that only experienced users could untick the box, and I was still getting loads of false negatives. I don't understand what you mean by conflicts - do you mean where one user says it should be, and another says it shouldn't? I don't recall that happening since forever. I can probably look at setting the PB flag based on surface. Send me some feedback though, otherwise I'll forget
|
|
Dec 2012
9:54am, 4 Dec 2012
3,927 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Some fell and XC courses are *reasonably* well measured (well, with GPS), so I tend to leave these as PB races, as I like the race on my portfolio front page. But there are others that I know are poorly measured, vary from year to year, depend on route choice etc, so I untick these. For example, our club XC races are all approximately 5miles, but each course is slightly different and most courses also vary from year to year. This was by way of an explanation of why a flag based on surface isn't necessarily a good idea. |
|
Dec 2012
10:06am, 4 Dec 2012
12,011 posts
|
fetcheveryone
Yeah, I get it. To be honest, the current situation is working best for me - and it doesn't take long at all to adjust the status of a race if I'm sent a link to it.
|
|
Dec 2012
10:16am, 4 Dec 2012
3,929 posts
|
rf_fozzy
It's just that you will get a lot of "false pbs" with your current way of doing things I guess. People not realising that courses are short (or not wanting to realise), so it might skew the site data as a whole slightly. At least with the option there, it made you think whether it was a pb course or not, but as SPR says it could have been misconstrued as a race where the user was going for a pb. A re-labelling of the tick box as "is the course accurately measured?" or something similar would have solved this problem. It'll be a slight inconvenience to people like me who run races where we don't measure things to the mm, but hey, that's life! |
Dec 2012
10:18am, 4 Dec 2012
4,424 posts
|
AJPAR
Nearly all run legs of a triathlon are not accurate and should not feature as a pb race, I've also never done an accurate xc either.
|
Dec 2012
10:21am, 4 Dec 2012
48,185 posts
|
Puddington
I love the way 100m times get people extraordinary WAVA too. Just for the record I don't really care. If people want to think they've got a pb when they haven't, that's up to them I guess. I wouldn't feel good about it, personally. |
Related Threads
-
New Features
Apr 2024
-
What constitutes a lurker?
Apr 2024
-
What is your fetch addiction position?
Apr 2024
-
Route Picture of the Day Appreciation Thread
Apr 2024
-
Chat Poll responses
Apr 2024
-
Fetch meetups
Apr 2024
-
Do we have a race report thread?
Apr 2024
-
Export Data
Mar 2024
-
Wonky elevation data
Mar 2024
-
SERIOUSLY LORD FETCH - SORT IT OUT!
Mar 2024
