Forum for Rank - worldwide comparison

Path: <= Rank =>

Deletion / WME [#1530]

Back to forum     Back to page

New reply

reply Deletion / WME (2008-08-22 19:58) [#4993]

Since the data in this page is completely inaccurate and outdated, does anyone object to deleting the page and starting again from scratch? I don't think there is a better way to make this page give a realistic worldwide rank comparison.

Unless anyone objects I will 'WME' it to nothing and start from scratch collecting data points.

velobici: Objection ! (2008-08-22 21:18) [#4994]

Agreed that a WME is called for at this time.

There are several sections to the page:

  • Table of equivalences between ranking systems
  • Disclaimer
  • Rating Methods
  • More Ratings Links
  • Discussion

I object to removing the "Rating Methods" and "More Rating Links" sections. Are there problems with those two sections ? Perhaps objections are focused around the table of equivalences only.

Futhermore, we should have the current table as a subpage if we remove it from the main page. Would be good to be able to compare the new table, once it is created, and the old table to see how different they are.

X Re: Objection ! (2008-08-22 22:58) [#4995]

Well ok, rating methods are fine. However the More Links part is mostly rubbish. I don't see much point in keeping that junk. Alex D's little test is not worth considering as important for worldwide rank comparison.

It will take a long time to construct a new table, putting the old one on a subpage would be fine, so long as it was labeled as completely misleading.

PeterHB: Objection No.2 (2008-08-22 23:47) [#4996]

A deletion and a WME are v. different things.

I agree a WME, that takes a neutral stance, tries to present a balanced view, and enhances readability is needed. A deletion ain't that.

What's wrong with a new page for a new way of doing it? ( You never know. If its good, this page will become an irrelevance. Hurray! )

If has lots of new evidence to base a new table on, great. Make a new table. On a new page. We can mark this one as 'out-dated' or 'superceded - see new page X'. Starting with a deletion and then not knowing what's next isn't a WME. The SL philosophy encourages new pages for different points of view. Deleting stuff we happen to disagree with is depreciated.

The idea of collecting new data points is great! There has been an [ext] attempt at this already, which may feel like contributing to. Or might even create a new page with a brand new data collection table and seed it with some new data.

X Re: Objection No.2 (2008-08-23 00:19) [#4997]

Sorry, by Deletion/WME I mean removing the table and the nonesense from this page. Senseis Library should contain correct information, not a misleading table. It will take a long time to create a new table, in the meantime data points are all you can really offer. I think you may as well keep those on the main page.

PeterHB: What's wrong with starting a new page? (2008-08-23 00:58) [#4998]

If you look at the history, the table is the major piece of content on this page. This page has been edited by about 70 people over 6 years. One man's nonsense is another man's imperfect information. It is clearly nowhere near 'THE TRUTH'. Many people over the years have disagreed in various directions, & the server rating systems change faster than you can blink. I am not the arbiter of 'THE TRUTH', no man is. I humbly suggest evidence is the best thing for approximating to some kind of truth, i.e. we need more data. Meanwhile, the table is topped and tailed with warnings about it being known to be inaccurate, not to be relied on, use judgement, your mileage may vary etc. So there have been quite a few decisions to keep and expand this table over the years. Deletion without gaining consensus that the new table will be better is not something I can support. The easiest way to gain that consensus would be to gather the data, and create the table on a new page. What are your objections to the substantive suggestion - creating a new page with new data, a new table and linking to that? Once people recognize it as better, renaming that to this, or deleting this page is the work of seconds. If this page, the work of many hands, offends you, but you don't wish to create your own, avoid it.

X Re: What's wrong with starting a new page? (2008-08-23 01:14) [#4999]

The problem is that data which was once accurate has become inaccurate over time. There is little point in leaving this page around to mislead people. It is better to start from a clean slate. It is more constructive to be brave, to be bold here. Clinging on to the existing junk on this page will not aid anyone seeking to compare ranks across the world.

PeterHB: Brave construction / destruction (2008-08-23 17:03) [#5001]

Yes, I think we all have agreed its inaccurate, and time has added to its inaccuracy. I also think I have been clear about my opinion against the brave move being destruction. I, for one, am nailing my flag to the mast, drawing the line in the sand etc. for leaving the table in. Add even more warnings as to its veracity above and below if you must. I recognize the concept of deleting false information as a public service ( I believe it is promoted as a public duty at wikipaedia.) I don't think this particular proposed deletion, at this time, is the right course here at SL. At a future date, when someone has created an alternative, or a consensus forms from more than a couple of people, burning this wobbly table may become the correct thing. I just don't see it that way at this moment.

This page might be relevant here. It suggests there is room for everyone, with new pages for different points of view.

(I am going to try to desist from continuing this discussion for now, as I believe I have made my opinion clear. Repetition with different words won't make it clearer.)

HermanHiddema: ((no subject)) (2008-08-23 12:25) [#5004]

How inaccurate is it, exactly? I think the "Go associations" part is pretty accurate, except for the Korean column, because Korea has introduced amateur dan grades and the table still represents the "old" gup system.

Perhaps the DDK part of the table is also unreliable, but ranks are generally more unreliable in that region.

A 5d friend of mine recently asked a Korean pro at what rank he should play if he were in Korea, and the answer was "about 3d".

X Re: ((no subject)) (2008-08-23 13:03) [#5005]

Well AGA ranks are different on the East Coast and the West Coast. European Ranks vary enormously internally. A Czech 15 kyu could probably play at 10 kyu in the UK. IGS and KGS rating systems have all changed since data points where added.

xela: Either you have some evidence, or you don't. Please stop teasing! (2008-08-24 13:37) [#5007]

I'd very much like it if the original poster could give their name, or a nickname. It's hard to have a long and meaningful discussion with an anonymous IP address. (Are and the same person?)

I think the current page, while far from perfect, is better than no page at all.

How do you know for sure that the current page is "totally misleading"? If this opinion is based on some actual data, then please post whatever data you have. In which direction is it misleading? Are some of the ranks too high? or too low? If they're not correct, then it has to be one or the other, and in either case it should be easy to fix. I don't see how this discussion can move forward without some solid factual input.

X Re: Either you have some evidence, or you don't. Please stop teasing! (2008-08-24 18:24) [#5008]

I've mentioned some already. Ok point x+one, they are using gup in the Korean ranks. South Korea hasn't used gup for a long time now.

HermanHiddema: Re: Either you have some evidence, or you don't. Please stop teasing! (2008-08-24 22:16) [#5010]

Actually, it seems the old Gup system is still in use in Korea. And of course, since "gup" translates to "kyu", it never went away, the Hankuk Kiwon just add amateur dan ranks and shifted all the gup ranks down. See also: RankGupKoreanExplained#toc2 Is it better just to replace the table with guidelines. (2008-08-25 19:01) [#5019]

Ok, that is one obvious improvement that could be implemented immediately. I wonder though if we ought to get rid of a table altogether and replace with some statements of fact (well supposition). (A table will inevitably provide grossly overgeneralized and often downright misleading information. The days when tables were hip html are long past.)

  • In general average AGA ranks are about 1 stone weaker than Average European ranks.
  • Ranks in Europe vary a great deal owing to the various implementations of ranking system. (Reference something like Bergsaker's study) Czech (etc) Kyu very strong.
  • Ranks in the AGA also vary internally, the X Coast being 1 stone stronger than the Y Coast.
  • Kyu grades can often be stronger on internet servers, this is due to the population usually being experienced players.
  • DGS can have wildly inaccurate grades due to novice players improving significantly after registration.
PeterHB: Re: Is it better just to replace the table with guidelines. (2008-08-25 20:53) [#5020]

To put it simply, no. Put your guidelines on the page. Or on a new page. Nothing you have written changes the lack of data, or argues against just adding to the page, or to a new page. The fact you are so focused on this page shows it is of interest to some people, e.g. you. That fact alone justifies it not suffering gratuituous deletions. Re: Is it better just to replace the table with guidelines. (2008-08-26 00:06) [#5021]

I don't really follow that argument. Well I will just augment the page to describe the many shortcomings in the table instead.

There may be a disclaimer on the page, but that doesn't justify putting down numbers with no margin of error beside them. The table misinforms people in my opinion.

tapir: WME (2009-03-03 20:08) [#5814]

I just made a WME... please improve further :)

reply If you want accurate data -- what's wrong with getting it yourself? (2009-04-20 03:17) [#5920]

It looks like has once again removed the table data. Why do you keep deleting it? I would think that if you are really interested in making sure that the table data is correct, why don't you simply do some research and then post your updated data? Just getting rid of something and not replacing it with anything better is contemptuous lazyness. Please explain yourself. C0nfuseki

PeterHB: Re: If you want accurate data -- what's wrong with getting it yourself? (2009-04-20 03:46) [#5921]

Its reverted for now. I will continue to prevent plain deletion. I will not prevent edits by well intentioned people. For anyone who believes the whole page needs to be started again, please create a new page with your efforts. There is plenty of room for other pages showing a different approach or different point of view.

tapir: Re: If you want accurate data -- what's wrong with getting it yourself? (2009-04-20 10:57) [#5922]

There is a subpage RankWorldwideComparison/DataCollection for efforts to remake this table in near future... (I would prefer simply reverting without version deletion -> transparency or does reviving delete the page history? + the editor (IP) can't explain himself or start a new page as requested while being blocked)

PeterHB: Re: If you want accurate data -- what's wrong with getting it yourself? (2009-04-20 18:06) [#5925]

Okay. Point conceeded.

Back to forum     Back to page

New reply

Path: <= Rank =>
Forum for Rank - worldwide comparison
RecentChanges · StartingPoints · About
Edit page ·Search · Related · Page info · Latest diff
[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
Search position
Page history
Latest page diff
Partner sites:
Go Teaching Ladder
Login / Prefs
Sensei's Library