|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Can we stop suggesting that IRI would become a substitute for a Championship? Many years there are Einstein teams that are unable to make it to Indiana (just look at this summer's team list to see current examples) and often the drive teams are not the same anyways...
|
|
#107
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Something used in business is the Net Promoter Score (NPS) based on the simple question to customers of whether they would recommend a product to others on a scale of 1-10 (actually 0-10, but we'll set the bottom at 1 as FIRST did). For the NPS, responses of 1-6 are "detractors," 7-8 are "passives," and 9-10 are "promoters." The NPS is calculated by the percentage of promoters minus the percentage of detractors.
This model doesn't perfectly apply to this survey question, since it is not a purely recommendation question, but we can view it as basically asking if you would recommend the championship split to FIRST. Despite the imperfect application, this model does remind us that people who vote 6-8 aren't as satisfied as we think. Anyway, for this question the championship split has an NPS of -55, which is not pretty. An average company gets an NPS between of between 5 and 10. Here is a benchmark for NPS. Here's more info about NPS. it's not a perfect application, but it's an interesting perspective. |
|
#108
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
My very limited experience in that realm gives some weight to my opinion on the subject, but I'm not remotely close to an expert, and I never was a spokesman for any company. |
|
#109
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
As it stands, there is no easy way to find a solution to how the Blog suggests about bringing together both the North/South Champs to compete at a later date. The cost would be enormous for teams to play another weekend at a neutral site, and the students/season are already maxed out. No matter how creative the solution, it will not address what you are pointing out. Ultimately, the season would have to be extended. Where? Before the New Year? It certainly cant afterwards. Once you hit May, we are talking about AP Exams, graduations, and other Academic Events that students are obligated to attend. Its not everyone, but enough that many teams would either miss events or certain students would miss them. The point that FIRST is growing and yet wants to give the same % of students the Championship experience, will not find a happy medium to address having one set of Champions and everyone playing under the same roof. Too many pros AND cons. Is it really too late or impossible to find a venue 2020 and beyond that can hold 800 teams? I wanted to add that it still doesnt sit well with me that in 2014, we had to choose between VEX and FRC Worlds because we do both programs. Even the VEX GDC said we had a good robot! We still wonder the what ifs had we played at VEX Worlds in 2014 for all of our teams that qualified. Many of our students had wished they could do both. Our underclassmen are already a little bummed that they wont get to see teams from Canada and Michigan, assuming we would be in Houston in a couple of years. Last edited by waialua359 : 16-05-2015 at 22:42. Reason: added more thoughts. |
|
#110
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
this make me so angry! why even post the results that show the public disagrees with there choices and then try to manipulate and extrapolate the numbers to try and get it to support there decision.
I would much rather them say :this is how it is going to be, deal with it" instead of beating around the bush. |
|
#111
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
What if we rescaled to a scale from 0 to 10? We can map the negative responses linearly to get the new responses. We replace 1 with 0, 2 with 1.25, 3 with 2.5, and 4 with 3.75. After performing the average based on this data, we get: .26*0+.11*1.25+.11*2.5+.07*3.75+.12*5+.04*6+.06*7+ .07*8+.04*9+.12*10 = 4.06 This weights everything symmetrically. It keeps positive values positive, and negative values negative. However, I think it is still likely to be flawed, as someone who is approximately neutral might be more likely to lean towards the favorable side than negative simply because the positive side is larger. Someone who votes roughly neutrally based on the "center" of the scale may be unfairly counted as voting positively. A better method might be to map the entire scale from 1-10 to 0-10. We replace 1 with 0, 2 with 1.111, 3 with 2.222, 4 with 3.333, 5 with 4.444, 6 with 5.555, 7 with 6.666, 8 with 7.777, and 9 with 8.888 (10 remains 10). We now get: .26*0+.11*1.111+.11*2.222+.07*3.333+.12*4.444+.04* 5.555+.06*6.666+.07*7.777+.04*8.888+.12*10 = 3.86 This scale is likely to be slightly biased towards negative, because it treats "neutral" according to the instructions as very slightly negative. I think the true average, if the scale had been 0-10 instead of 1-10, would lie somewhere between these two numbers. In any case, they are closer to each other than they are to FIRST's number for the average (4.47). There also are quite possibly some psychological effects that I have not accounted for. Do the numbers on the scale themselves affect how we vote? If given a poll, 1-5, and the average is 4, does this imply that if the same poll was conducted on a scale from 1-9, the average would be 7? This would be expected if people simply scaled their votes linearly (or at least, linearly on average) but that may not be the case. If we remap the entire scale |
|
#112
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
|
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
There's an awful lot of analysis going on. That makes sense because so many of us are engineers. We love to crunch numbers. A lot of that effort is wasted, though. The survey methods weren't designed to give precise answers, for all of the reasons so many others have already stated. This is a non-scientific poll, which is only good for getting a quick read on the general feelings of a non-uniform sample.
Taking a step back, though, the message is pretty clear. The big bars are on the left. The little bars are on the right. Generally speaking, the people who responded to this survey were pretty negative about the split. You don't need much mathematics to reach that conclusion. Which brings up a couple of very obvious questions. Do the survey results reflect opinion in general? Why is the leadership pretending that somehow the survey results are neutral or only slightly negative? From the discussion and analysis, though, I see a couple of other things. One is that I find it interesting that there was a significant split between those who had never attended and those who had attended. That, to me, is meaningful. The other thing that leaps out to me, mostly from the discussions, is....districts. Everyone ought to be doing them. Everywhere. I'm new here, but I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't. I have to do a bit of interpretation of the numbers in order to reach this conclusion, but I think that those people who like the split may very well like it simply because it gives them another accessible, and significant, competition. A district championship would serve that purpose, much like it does in Michigan. |
|
#114
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
|
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
I wish they gave actual analysis based off team number. Not even to show that,'this elite team felt this way!' but just to see how votes were split across team age, events attended, teams that have been to champs vs teams that haven't, etc... Then we'd be able to fully understand what the demographic reach that responded to the survey was.
|
|
#116
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
Why should we trust these results as anything more than a voluntary online survey? |
|
#118
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
|
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
|
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Because individuals without a strong opinion do not invest their time in voluntary surveys.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|