Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay O'Donnell
Quantitative data>Qualitative data.
|
There was a rather heated thread a little while ago about this, but that isn't necessarily true. Quantitative data without qualitative is too objective to form a well-rounded picklist, just as qualitative without quantitative is to subjective to form a well-rounded picklist. Often times, it's important to know how or why a team is doing something. These things can be vital in ensuring the picklist takes into account teams who have underperformed due to alliances, and teams who got lucky a few times. Qualitative data also ensures you know teams that no-showed, didn't move during a match, or had a major failure on the field. This sort of info could be taken alongside quantitative, but it's easier to do it qualitatively as it takes little effort while reducing the amount of work quantitative scouters need to do.
That said, if that's what OP's scouter's notes look like, he's doing it wrong. Data that just says "bad" doesn't really mean anything. Good qualitative data should explain how a team is doing something, their strengths and weaknesses, a unique, defining trait of the robot, etc. If that's what this scouter is doing, then odds are your aggregated info for most of the teams would look a little like this:
"bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad"
which is hardly helpful at all.