Savvy enough to know you are a little too eager to do Mark’s bidding for him.As some people on this board know me, and also know Mark, they also know that you're not particularly savvy. However, you certainly are ridiculous.
Savvy enough to know you are a little too eager to do Mark’s bidding for him.As some people on this board know me, and also know Mark, they also know that you're not particularly savvy. However, you certainly are ridiculous.
Pointing out a problem with the app makes me a dumb ass? Maybe you have something to hide? You don’t get to answer for Mark if you don’t get to see the source code."Mark's bidding" in supporting a helpful app that is intended for a similar space that this board covers? You continue to let people know very clearly that you're a dumbass conspiracy nut. I'm not sure why you want to keep reinforcing that belief.
Pointing out a problem with the app makes me a dumb ass?
We need to start questioning who is behind this app and if we can trust it.
Maybe you have something to hide?
You don’t get to answer for Mark if you don’t get to see the source code.
That seems like one of the primary use cases of the app.
If you are not able to see the source code so you are in fact guessing yourself. I don’t need you to repeat things I already know. The fact remains the program has trouble with one data iteration and according to you Mark has no idea how the problem came about. Your words not mine. This doesn’t give me a lot of confidence. But it’s your words. Mark would probably disagree.Nope.
Posting this does.
Posting this does.
Nobody, including me, is answering for Mark. Me, myself, and I, initially tried to help you understand what you're struggling with. But I have since conclusively realized you're not capable of rational thought or discourse.
If you are not able to see the source code so you are in fact guessing yourself. I don’t need you to repeat things I already know. The fact remains the program has trouble with one data iteration and according to you Mark has no idea how the problem came about. Your words not mine. This doesn’t give me a lot of confidence. But it’s your words. Mark would probably disagree.
I am looking at the problem itself. If the program can get something so obvious wrong, how can someone has any confidence in other ranking that aren’t so obvious. And your claim that a program gets x percent of predictions correct. Unless you are Mark, how didn’t you get that type of detail? If you are Mark, I suggest you go fix the problem in the code.
People like you are who my company fires. No desire to improve and hope things resolve by themselves. If you care about a product you put out, you would want to fix any glitch.You are a walking advertisement for the ignore button. Are you this slow and disagreeable in real life, or just on internet forums? But in case some neurons upstairs decide to fire, all of my knowledge is both from using YSR for years, and now the app, from its birth. And dozens, if not hundreds, of email conversations back and forth to Mark and his team about things I was seeing and suggestions for improving the app. Quite a few of them have made it in; he's incredibly responsive. A number of current and past posters on this board also have a similar relationship with him and his team.
And yes - as discussed in the first post about in this thread, there seems to be a glitch where when data sources are added manually, sometimes the rating of the combined team seems strange for a day or two. I've noticed it. I've talked to Mark about it. He's investigated it quite a few times. It isn't reproducible. And as also discussed since that first post, it resolves itself shortly, just as it did in this case.
If you want the details on the predictivity, ask support! The queries run periodically and automatically so the team can make sure that the predictions continue to track as expected. If you lost confidence in the app as a whole because of the bug above, so be it. I think you're a fool, but being foolish is certainly anyone's right.
People like you who can't understand why their language and behavior turns everyone off aren't hired in the first place by my company.People like you are who my company fires. No desire to improve and hope things resolve by themselves. If you care about a product you put out, you would want to fix any glitch.
This is a very nieve statement from someone who clearly hasn't worked on complex systems.People like you are who my company fires. No desire to improve and hope things resolve by themselves. If you care about a product you put out, you would want to fix any glitch.
It’s so complex that Random and Focomoso can’t explain the glitch. It’s so complex that no one can reproduce it.This is a very nieve statement from someone who clearly hasn't worked on complex systems.
OR this is a statement from a typical manager unqualified to oversee a complex system but offers up recommendations like "change the soccer ball avatar"This is a very nieve statement from someone who clearly hasn't worked on complex systems.
Yep. That's what happens in complex systems. In this case, it's not the algorithm itself that's particularly complex, it's its recursive nature and the sheer amount of data running through it.It’s so complex that Random and Focomoso can’t explain the glitch. It’s so complex that no one can reproduce it.
I, too, toil in the realm of computer instruction generation to primarily financially support the activities of my other family members.Note that this is what I do in my day job. (Someone's gotta pay for all that soccer.)
There is another great part of the app. You can click on any team on it and see the game results for that team. Nationals proved to me that the algorithm isn't perfect and I think there should be more weighting to the "difficulty of schedule". I say that because of the dominance of SoCal. We play great teams and a lot of other clubs play very sub-par teams, beat them 9-0, and the app gives them way too much credit. Really good teams can absolutely score goals at will against really weak teams and you learn nothing playing those teams if the score is 4-0 or 14-0.What I like about the rankings app is that it provides a quick and easy way to define a team or clubs relative standing against their peers.
Before the rankings app team and club standings were 100% subjective. You'd get articles written showing team and club rankings that were completely made up by the article writer.
What I don't like about the app is predictability. While it's nice to see who mathematically will win a game. The problem is there will always be players and parents that will decide which games they choose to participate in based on their teams ability to win. To me this is the wrong way to approach team sports. Unfortunately it happens more often than you'd expect.
The other side to this coin is good teams that generally play terrible teams in league get penalized.There is another great part of the app. You can click on any team on it and see the game results for that team. Nationals proved to me that the algorithm isn't perfect and I think there should be more weighting to the "difficulty of schedule". I say that because of the dominance of SoCal. We play great teams and a lot of other clubs play very sub-par teams, beat them 9-0, and the app gives them way too much credit. Really good teams can absolutely score goals at will against really weak teams and you learn nothing playing those teams if the score is 4-0 or 14-0.
We play great teams and a lot of other clubs play very sub-par teams, beat them 9-0, and the app gives them way too much credit. Really good teams can absolutely score goals at will against really weak teams and you learn nothing playing those teams if the score is 4-0 or 14-0.
The other side to this coin is good teams that generally play terrible teams in league get penalized.
The problem with what you're describing is after a team gets up by 5 goals they tend pull back from scoring.Both of these things can't be true at the same time. Good teams playing poor competition either get too much credit (and have inflated ratings), or not enough credit (and have deflated ratings). It doesn't mean either of you are seeing things incorrectly, and it might be a a direct interpretation of actual games that you're seeing.
But I think it might be helpful to separate the predicted score / difference between two teams (Did we win by 3 goals), and the win/loss result (Did we win). The ratings are optimized so a higher rated team will beat a lower rated team. If there are circumstances where higher (better) rated teams are losing to lower (worse) rated teams, the ratings of both of the teams will adjust in the expected direction. If it were happening enough, the percentage of successfully predicted wins would be expected to be noticeably lower than it is.
I think we'd all agree that a team that can beat another by 5 can also beat them by 10, and the inherent differences between the teams don't matter much whether the score differs by 5 points, 10 points, or 20 points.