FRCTop25.com Going Live Soon! Get Involved.

[mwtidd]

Do you plan on supporting an API or an iframe. This is the sort of thing I would like to embed within the scouting pit.

Also after having the social network on loop, I had an idea that may be more appropriate for you to implement than me. Do a facemash sort of thing but for the robots. my thought was to edit team numbers from photos and to put two robots up against each other.

This would help to eliminate preconceptions and natural biases people have to power teams from past years.

Then again you use the college sports example, which actually encourages these biases.

A similar thing could be done with match videos, where you have to select one team from the 6.

One thing I have noticed flipping through the photos that many young teams have very well designed robots this year. There is no reason they shouldn't be able to rise to the top 25 simply because they don't have "FIRST fame"

Also, I believe the 3rd year rule may increase the likelihood of +3 year teams being voted for.

[Koko Ed]

How is 177 listed at 20th and also receiving votes?
I know they're that good but they can't be that good.

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by lineskier

Also, I believe the 3rd year rule may increase the likelihood of +3 year teams being voted for.

That's a good point. I'll remove that condition.

Thanks to those who sent in some test submissions, everything seems to be working well.

Is the site easy to read? Is it too cluttered? What do you think about having a top 25 poll for minibots?

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by 340x4xLife

That's a good point. I'll remove that condition.

Thanks to those who sent in some test submissions, everything seems to be working well.

Is the site easy to read? Is it too cluttered? What do you think about having a top 25 poll for minibots?

I think it works well as is.

I don't know what kind of DB you are using, but I would recommend storing the timestamp of each vote. I like the up and down sections, and this would allow you to eventually provide stock graphs for the teams.

Also the titles of the charts are a little confusing, actually more so if you just didn't include it.
If I was in control of this, I would just remove them. For me the the table is naturally intuitive. Also note that the arrows are offset from the actual row, potentially you could use a smaller arrow [the same size as your font] and it would have the same effect. (make the arrows the same size)

again these are small things, but they look good.

regarding minibots, personally I don't think voting is the best way to rank minibots. The twitter feed contains match bonuses and I plan on using a team's estimated bonus contribution to figure out who the best minibots actually are.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

This is a cool idea.

Do you plan to weight some user's contributions more than others? I don't see how one person could possibly rank all of the the team without basically guessing.

[Chris is me]

I would prefer rather than a "student / mentor" poll there be a "public" and "private" poll - "private" being random qualified individuals added to the polls.

[XaulZan11]

This is a cool idea. I fear there will be a strong correlation between if a team was at a webcasted regional and ranking.

I also like Chris's idea of a poll of expert or qualified individuals. Maybe those people could be voted nominated and then voted on.

[Tetraman]

Yea, if you were going to have maybe 15 or so people for a "professional" or "more realistic" poll, that would be good. Maybe contact some CD users via pm, have them sign in, vote and even keep who they are secret. Sorta Looking Forward.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

Yea, if you were going to have maybe 15 or so people for a "professional" or "more realistic" poll, that would be good. Maybe contact some CD users via pm, have them sign in, vote and even keep who they are secret. Sorta Looking Forward.

What may be more interesting is to have those 15 people actually write articles explaining their personal top 25s.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by lineskier

What may be more interesting is to have those 15 people actually write articles explaining their personal top 25s.

Shh, you're stealing my ideas

While I don't want to assert that my opinion means anything more than jack squat, I was thinking of making blog posts on my personal bog every week or so with a top 10 / 25 list along these lines

[Tristan Lall]

Yeah, I think I'd be more interested in hearing people who definitely know what they're talking about express their opinions—rather than be drowned out by the votes of a lot of people who may not have any particular credibility to make these assessments.

[XaulZan11]

I would suggest publishing who the voters are (so we know they are experts) but not their personal rankings. Of course, the voters can share their rankings and some rationale, but I could see some not wanting others to know as it could tip their hand as to what strategies are best. An example would be someone ranking only teams with fast minibots. If this person was associated with an elite team, I think alot of people would think that "team xxx thinks minibots are extrememly important".

[dodar]

We should have a public poll posted and then do a FIRSTcast of these 15 or so "experts" counting down from 25-1 and them giving reasons why the teams are where they are.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by dodar

We should have a public poll posted and then do a FIRSTcast of these 15 or so "experts" counting down from 25-1 and them giving reasons why the teams are where they are.

This is a really good idea - I really think the conversational nature of a podcast would be of benefit to such a discussion.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

This is a really good idea - I really think the conversational nature of a podcast would be of benefit to such a discussion.

Well when I first thought of this College Football Live popped into my mind. Usually when the new top 25 comes out the moderator would start listing from 25-1 and each team they would stop and talk about them and each would say if they think the team is too high, too low or right where they need to be. Like, all the experts' votes would be pre-tallied into the list then they would talk about the list.