User talk:Dom497/GA Cup
Important
[edit]@NickGibson3900, TheQ Editor, and Figureskatingfan: Please take a look at the page (that is linked to this talk page) regarding a revision to how the rounds could work.--Dom497 (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think that it's a given that we'd have to revise rounds based on participation; however, we already have 19 and it's still almost 3 weeks before we start, and the word hasn't really gotten out about it yet. Also, folks can join up until Oct. 15, so I'm sure we'll have a good turnout--maybe not the same number the WikiCup gets, but this is our first year. Also, I don't think I like this new pool system. I know that the one-on-one match-ups would be random, but it strikes me as a little unfair, anyway, even if we have a small number of participants. I mean, if a lower-scoring contestant is matched up against a higher-scoring contestant, the lower-scoring one wouldn't be motivated to continue. I'd like to keep the pools organized like we've already discussed, similar to how the WikiCup sets up its pools. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ummm...I must forget when/how we discussed how we would organize the pools. The last thing I remember is saying that we will "figure it out later". Can you fill me in? Regarding my revision, going with what you said, round 1 would have everyone compete to figure out who goes into which pool (and we would not tell them until the round is almost at an end so we don't get that one person who reviews a little to get into a smaller pool and then explode with reviews only to win the pool by a massive amount). Round 2 would be organized by Point 1 (mentioned under Round 1). And the same idea would go throughout.....we try to keep the best with the best and the not-so-best with the not-so-best until there is no other choice. That way, the top reviewers would actually get eliminated at one point, making it an even playing field....it works in theory....I don't know if it would actually work!--Dom497 (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think we should leave it as a spin off of the Wikicup. But I'll be fine with this too. I just don't like the one one idea. It adds much more pressure and is not really efficient. It's more of a complicated version of the Wikicup layout but it's almost the same idea. And btw, I have some questions about your suggestion. What if 23 people signed up? You can't put them into equal groups. And in the quarter finals, what if the "best" reviewer is against the "second best" reviewer, I like how you set up a third place competition but does that mean the "second best" reviewer will get 3rd place. And what happens if someone's first loss was in the semi finals? Where do they go? Cheers, ΤheQ Editor Talk? 19:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, so my idea isn't fully finished but I was thinking it would be a place to start discussion. But the main reason why I wanted to start discussing how the rounds will work is because of this question: No matter how many people sign-up, are we still going to go aim for a March 2015 finish? IMO, it is absolutely crucial that we do because people didn't sign-up to participate in another backlog drive. As far as the participants know, the competition will end in March so we better stick to that or we may see some dropouts. Like I mentioned above, I have no idea how the pools are going to work (even though it seems like its already been figured out) so this may not even be an issue.--Dom497 (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also, do you think that it is a good idea that for everyone who is eliminated, we put them into a "consolation competition"? It was hard to describe it using the template which is why it doesn't make sense right now. When I get a chance, I'll draw up a sketch and post it if we agree for a "consolation" comp.--Dom497 (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and TheQ Editor, given that we wouldn't be doing the one on ones, I think it would be more appropriate to the call the "second competition" a consolation prize. It's really a win win. The people who are eliminated from the main competition will likely continue to review articles in hopes to win the consolation which = more reviews and less nominations. But then again, I think for now we should worry about the main comp. before the extra one. I'm just throwing the idea out there.--Dom497 (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think we should leave it as a spin off of the Wikicup. But I'll be fine with this too. I just don't like the one one idea. It adds much more pressure and is not really efficient. It's more of a complicated version of the Wikicup layout but it's almost the same idea. And btw, I have some questions about your suggestion. What if 23 people signed up? You can't put them into equal groups. And in the quarter finals, what if the "best" reviewer is against the "second best" reviewer, I like how you set up a third place competition but does that mean the "second best" reviewer will get 3rd place. And what happens if someone's first loss was in the semi finals? Where do they go? Cheers, ΤheQ Editor Talk? 19:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ummm...I must forget when/how we discussed how we would organize the pools. The last thing I remember is saying that we will "figure it out later". Can you fill me in? Regarding my revision, going with what you said, round 1 would have everyone compete to figure out who goes into which pool (and we would not tell them until the round is almost at an end so we don't get that one person who reviews a little to get into a smaller pool and then explode with reviews only to win the pool by a massive amount). Round 2 would be organized by Point 1 (mentioned under Round 1). And the same idea would go throughout.....we try to keep the best with the best and the not-so-best with the not-so-best until there is no other choice. That way, the top reviewers would actually get eliminated at one point, making it an even playing field....it works in theory....I don't know if it would actually work!--Dom497 (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dom497, TheQ Editor, and Figureskatingfan: What about this format? NickGibson3900 Talk 23:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- As previosuly brought up, my biggest concern is how Round 2 works. Surely, the lower scoring participants are going to get discouraged. I think we have to go with the top scorers in one pool and work our way down (EXAMPLE: 1-7 go in Pool A; 8-14 go to pool B, etc).--Dom497 (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- But then the "best reviewers" are all together so users place 15th and lower have a lot "easier" competition. NickGibson3900 Talk 01:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, put it this way. In round 1, User A scored a total of 500 points. User Z scored 100. If I was User Z and was in the same pool, I would pretty much quit (based off how much free time I have). Figureskatingfan, how does the WikiCup do it? I'm starting to think we should copy them round for round (as close as we can).--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Actually that does make sense. And yes, I reckon we should use the Wikicup's successful format, but we shouldn't mention it anywhere on the GA Cup pages. -- NickGibson3900 Talk 01:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, put it this way. In round 1, User A scored a total of 500 points. User Z scored 100. If I was User Z and was in the same pool, I would pretty much quit (based off how much free time I have). Figureskatingfan, how does the WikiCup do it? I'm starting to think we should copy them round for round (as close as we can).--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- But then the "best reviewers" are all together so users place 15th and lower have a lot "easier" competition. NickGibson3900 Talk 01:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I recall that we said we were using the Wikicup as a model, and use the same pools it uses. As far as a finish is concerned, the main page says that the dates and number of participants will change depending on the number of sign-ups, so there would be no surprises. I'm not so sure about a consolation competition; I'm a huge Top Chef fan, but I never thought that those on-line competitions of the eliminated competitors were all that fair to the other competitors. Plus, it complicates things for us.
- This is my understanding of how the Wikicup works: everyone is in Round 1, and the top 128 progresses to Round 2. In Round 2, there are 8 groups of 16; the top two progress, as do the top 48 of the remaining contestants. Placement in the pools are random because that's the most fair; there are computer programs that will help us with placement. Lower scoring participants will always be discouraged, and that may discourage them from continuing, but that's par for the course. People do basically quit once they've realized they won't move forward, but that's natural. I've competed in the Wikicup twice, and have always made it as far as the semifinals. There have been rounds that have frustrated me because I was put in a pool with high scorers and have had to work harder to move on, when there were other pools where I would've moved on far more easily. Other times, I was in an easier pool. That's simply part of the nature of tournament play, and competitors understand that. I agree that we should just follow how the Wikicup does things. And of course, we shouldn't mention it as per our previous agreements. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- If lower scoring participants are in the same pool as higher scoring participants, they just have to deal with it. Things never go the way you want it in real life. They just have to work harder. ΤheQ Editor Talk? 20:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good enough.--Dom497 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- If lower scoring participants are in the same pool as higher scoring participants, they just have to deal with it. Things never go the way you want it in real life. They just have to work harder. ΤheQ Editor Talk? 20:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)