Automated Scoring

[Gowan]

One aspect that I haven't seen mentioned is the requirement to be able to audit scores. With the current system, judge's scorecards are sent to KCBS HQ where they are stored. In case the scoring is questioned, the original scorecards can be pulled and all the data rekeyed for verification. My understanding is the office also randomly audits contests throughout the year to check for undetected problems.

Without the ability to check the original score straight from the judge a thorough audit would not be possible.

 

[drbbq]

I had a question about this at awards yesterday, and I was wondering: Currently does the KCBS software use double entry to confirm score reporting? Does any one know if it's part of the RFP for it to be included in the new software? Certainly that affects time, which I know part of this thread is trying to eliminate, but it would improve any issues with accuracy.

dmp

I can't speak to the new software but I doubt it will require double entry. KCBS has been unwilling to accept the probability of mistakes with single entry so it's never been seriously discussed. It would put a burden on the reps and take longer. But IMO those are not good reasons to shoot it down. I think the error probability is pretty high and the reps are never tested so..... And truth be told volunteers are often used for the data entry anyway and there are no requirements for them at all.

 

[dmprantz]

Thanks Ray. I know the software has been around for a long time, and some will almost suredly tell me that the process has "worked" up until now so why change it, but me being the detail oriented, anal renentive A-Hole that I am, who designs systems which try to eliminate ambiguity and human error as much as possible, I find it amazing that there is no form error-checking currently in place. In Cumming, the difference between GC and RGC was $2,000 and 0.5714. That's one point in appearance. If just one mis-key happened, that changes things a lot. I think as purses get bigger and bigger, KCBS owes it to people guarentee error-free results, especially since they charge a premium for it....but that's me.

dmp

 

[Jorge]

I spoke to a subject matter expert on optical readers yesterday, and should have some sample cards to look at next week. They believe that in the event of staining the card could be wiped clean, without removing the judges scores. We'll see.

 

[CaptTable]

Just a little more info for the present discussion, we (and most other reps) audit each category as it is completed. We audit the top two (2), middle two (2), and bottom (2) finishers. This is done before any entries are made for the next category.

When volunteers are used, we, usually, REQUIRE two people. One reads out the numbers while the other inputs. Then, the one who inputs reads back to the original reader for a double check.

 

[drbbq]

Just a little more info for the present discussion, we (and most other reps) audit each category as it is completed. We audit the top two (2), middle two (2), and bottom (2) finishers. This is done before any entries are made for the next category.

When volunteers are used, we, usually, REQUIRE two people. One reads out the numbers while the other inputs. Then, the one who inputs reads back to the original reader for a double check.

Thanks for telling us Phillip and thanks for doing this. But the fact is it's not a requirement if I read you right.