Chuck Kennedy wrote:Roger and I, the rating guys are not involved in the fix when PDGA numbers are missing in TD reports. It's PDGA staff. Not sure when you contacted them but all corrections had to be done for 2008 before Feb 2009. Second, events more than 12 months after your most recently officially rated round drop off your rating calculation. If you have played an event since May 17, 2009, then even if the database for 2008 was reopened for the correction, the event would not be part of your rating in this upcoming Sep 1 update. Have you played a sanctioned event since May 17, 2009? If not, I'll see if your record can be fixed.
I first contacted the PDGA the first weekday after the scores for that tournament were posted, having asked the TD about it and having had him refer me to you.
I called every 2 weeks after that until I just accepted that you had no interest in correcting the data (which you've shown most eloquently is exactly
Which, of course, means that ALL of calls to have this fixed were well before Feb 2009, and were well within the period of time in which these rounds would've affected my rating.If you hadn't felt it wasn't worth your time to take the 30 seconds necessary to look at my ratings history
, you'd have noticed that I played several sanctioned events after that tournament, with 14 rounds on my rating at the last update. These rounds include the tournament from the very next weekend.
Meanwhile, thanks to the PDGA's lack of interest in doing it's job, my rating is keeping me available to sandbag the CRAP out of the Rec fields at sanctioned events I play, leaving many of the other competitors with a bad taste in their mouth about how fair PDGA sanctioned events are. Since this sort of lack of concern about consistency and accuracy of the data are rarely isolated incidents in organizations that deal with as much data as the PDGA does, I would assume this is happening all over the place, as well.
I've done what's RIGHT, and have stepped up to Intermediate of my own accord this year, knowing that my rating SHOULD
reflect that I'm NOT a Rec-level player, but you can see by the vast number of rounds I've played in sanctioned events this year, that I really haven't been motivated to play many of them - and it's all down to one simple error that would've taken all of about 2 minutes to fix if the PDGA had shown the least bit of concern for it's members.
Meanwhile, you basically say "too effing bad for you, we were lazy for so long that it doesn't matter anymore, so cry us a river and we'll all go for a ride on the failboat."
To which I'm left with only two questions:
1. Why was this allowed to happen, for so long, with so many requests to fix it?
2. Why should I feel that I'm getting ANYTHING out of the PDGA worth paying for, when all I cared about in the first place was a rating I could compare with my friends?
Beyond being a player in tournaments, I'm also a TD, and would look forward to running sanctioned events (read- throwing you guys some money in fees), if I felt the PDGA was doing their job, and thus, worth giving money to.
So, I guess that brings up a third question:
3. Why should I bother jumping through all of the necessary hoops to run a sanctioned event, if I can't count on the PDGA to be concerned about the flaws in their process? MY
reputation as a TD will be affected by the angst my players would feel about these sort of inaccuracies and uncaring attitude, should there be any such malarchy with the results of my tourneys.
On the technical side, you mention that the 2008 database would have to be "reopened", and as a programmer for the last 29 years I'm compelled to point out the fallacy of that statement.
Unless your entire back-end database and codebase are a total amateur hack-job, none of the data is ever closed
. It should all reside within some sort of SQL database, which doesn't care in the least how old the data is, it just holds it and lets you change it at will. If you're seriously dealing with separate databases for each year of data, you're making yourselves do ungodly amounts of extra work for no reason (not to mention the performance problems associated with using flat-files, excel spreadsheets or access databases as the back-end for a website), and I re-iterate my offer to help you gut and replace your database with something that doesn't suck.
I threw Wizards before they were cool.