Twitter decoding program

[DavisC]

Well, while it is easy to read the twitter results from the FMS (after getting used to it). I was wondering about if someone has already made a program that will use the Twitter feed and organize it into a more orderly fashion?

The Twitter I am talking about is the one that is done by the FMS at the regionals.
http://twitter.com/#!/frcfms

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by DavisC

Well, while it is easy to read the twitter results from the FMS (after getting used to it). I was wondering about if someone has already made a program that will use the Twitter feed and organize it into a more orderly fashion?

The Twitter I am talking about is the one that is done by the FMS at the regionals.
http://twitter.com/#!/frcfms

I have some Python code that will do this.

http://www.github.com/tombot/FmsGrabber

[Joe Ross]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/frcspy.php?
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=104057
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...15&postcount=4

[Lalaland1125]

Decided to make my own twitter decoding program that tries to gather the average points for the teams.

It outputs a csv file with the teams in one column, and the average fouls, score, etc points for each match that team was in.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Lalaland1125

Decided to make my own twitter decoding program

Does anyone know:

1) why there was (and is) no Twitter data for Traverse City, and

2) is this data lost forever ?

[Kpchem]

Originally Posted by Ether

Does anyone know:

1) why there was (and is) no Twitter data for Traverse City, and

2) is this data lost forever ?

It seems this also holds true for the Oregon regional...

[quinxorin]

The twitter feed isn't the only source of data about match results. Here is the traverse city data, and here is the Oregon regional data.

[Kpchem]

Originally Posted by quinxorin

The twitter feed isn't the only source of data about match results. Here is the traverse city data, and here is the Oregon regional data.

While those sites provide the match results, the twitter feed provides this as well as a break down of how the points were scored by each alliance (IIRC, bridge points, foul points, hybrid points, and tele-operated points). I have yet to find another source for this kind of data.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Kpchem

While those sites provide the match results, the twitter feed provides this as well as a break down of how the points were scored by each alliance (IIRC, bridge points, foul points, hybrid points, and tele-operated points).

Correct.

Also, see attachment. Does anyone know how the 205 TeleOp points number was computed for Team 67 at Waterford? Unlike the Hybrid and Bridge points, it does not seem to be equal to the total of the alliance TeleOp points scored in the 12 qual matches by the alliance in which Team 67 was a member.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Ether

Also, see attachment. Does anyone know how the 205 TeleOp points number was computed for Team 67 at Waterford? Unlike the Hybrid and Bridge points, it does not seem to be equal to the total of the alliance TeleOp points scored in the 12 qual matches by the alliance in which Team 67 was a member.

It appears to be the sum of the twitter Teleop points and foul points. This raises the question as to whether the FMS is using the correct tiebreaker for ranking (teleop hoop points).

It would be great if someone with a working twitter parser could compare the ranking results when QS, hybrid, and bridge scores are all tied, to see which is being used as the tiebreaker. Looking at the Alamo regional, there were 2 cases of this 2721 tied with 4162 and 2583 tied with 2969. Unfortunately, the magnitude of difference between then team's TP were large enough that including foul points would be unlikely to change the ranking. I did not see any such ties at Kansas City, BAE, or Smokey Mountain, but there's still a lot of events I didn't look at.

I did ask about this on Q/A.

[Lalaland1125]

I have now added least squares solving in order to better find the "impact" each team had on the score. The results are now much more accurate, and better predict the results in the final match( the total of the average scores from each team member is around +- 5 from the total score for that team(excluding outliers like team 93)).

( I am only using data from the qualifying matches to predict the final rounds)

While of course hand recording the individual scores of each team would be more accurate, this should be a great help in determining which teams provide the most "positive" points to help in the finals.