Scioly.org

Luo wrote:Congratulations on a job well done, Chalker. A couple small details: our team would have preferred to hear the school names announced before the state names to increase suspense. Also, there seemed to be some minor inconsistencies in school names; for example, the phrase "High School" being left off of "New Trier," which seemed to confuse the announcers at times.

One way to expedite the ceremony would be to do as they did last year, which is to announce the next event as pictures are being taken for the previous event, instead of waiting for the pictures to be all taken before announcing the next event.

Good points. However most of these are up to the announcers (which I don't have much control over). The PPT had the school name first, followed by the state. Also, we pulled the school names directly from the registration, so for whatever reason New Trier didn't include HS on their registration (and I don't have it in front of me, but I suspect it was shown the same way on the program). I tried several times to get them to pick up the overall pace, but was told that the students were enjoying the moment and it'd detract from that.

Mr. Chalker, out of curiosity, do you have a spreadsheet of the results in excel format? I would like to sort the spreadsheet that was released by ranking.

That awkward moment when the guy at the opening ceremony announces: "I heard you had a choice of going to Disney, Universal, or Kennedy Space Center on Sunday..." and the entire team turns to the coach and goes "WHAT THE HECK YOU NEVER TOLD US THIS!!!!!"
:p we had to drive back to drop our seniors off for graduation

SciBomb97 wrote:I just wish we were back at Islands of Adventure...that was the best part of it all.

Ditto. Dang, that was fun. And you, for once, was completely not-serious about anything. At all.

foreverphysics wrote:

SciBomb97 wrote:I just wish we were back at Islands of Adventure...that was the best part of it all.

Ditto. Dang, that was fun. And you, for once, was completely not-serious about anything. At all.

Hey, I'm not always completely serious, just when I need to be. I have no idea what kind of [SciBomb97] you're seeing.

kentuckyfan1001 wrote:Mr. Chalker, out of curiosity, do you have a spreadsheet of the results in excel format? I would like to sort the spreadsheet that was released by ranking.

I do, although I'm curious as to why you want to do that? What are you trying to get out of it? I might be able to just give you the final answer you are looking for.

chalker wrote:

kentuckyfan1001 wrote:Mr. Chalker, out of curiosity, do you have a spreadsheet of the results in excel format? I would like to sort the spreadsheet that was released by ranking.

I do, although I'm curious as to why you want to do that? What are you trying to get out of it? I might be able to just give you the final answer you are looking for.

Oh, I just want to see (visually) which events are the weakest for the top 10 teams. Also, I want to calculate the correlation coefficient of each event.

kentuckyfan1001 wrote: Oh, I just want to see (visually) which events are the weakest for the top 10 teams. Also, I want to calculate the correlation coefficient of each event.

Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to get approval to release the Excel versions of the spreadsheet. However with minimal effort you can cut and paste the data from the PDF's that were posted into Excel and generate your own. I did just do a quick analysis though that might be of interest:

In Div B, the top 10 teams collectively did the worst in Compute This, Exp. Design, Forestry, and Storm the Castle.
In Div C it was Chem Lab, Helicopters, Optics, and Tech Problem Solving.

I've also done a lot of statistical analysis already, including correlation coefficients, but the results are really only for internal consumption by the core SO Committee Members (and we are already having lots of discussions about them). I think there is a big danger in people misinterpreting things if I start posting a lot of data. For example, let's hypothetically say one particular event has a relatively low correlation to the others. Some people might think that indicates a problem with the event rules or event supervisors. However others might think it's just indicative of the fact the skills required for that event are markedly different from all the other events. Regardless, is it a good or bad thing that in that event more teams had a chance to medal / place well?

Is there a pdf score sheet that lists teams by rank instead of number?

smartkid222 wrote:Is there a pdf score sheet that lists teams by rank instead of number?

No. There's a general feeling amongst the organizers that by number is how more teams want to see it.