Overall category missing
| Author | Date | Message |
|---|---|---|
| Rene Borg | Aug 4 2023, 3:11pm | Just looking at the latest results and historical ones - seems the 'Overall' category has 'fallen off' the code that generates the results. |
| Conor Nolan | Aug 4 2023, 3:17pm | Whether intentional or not the All category 'button' is now the last on down the bottom |
| Derek Hay | Aug 4 2023, 3:41pm | I noticed the same, plus the overall category no longer lists the overall finishers placing either. |
| Mick Hanney | Aug 4 2023, 7:33pm | @Derek - some of us probably don't want to know the overall result! I also see a volunteering total beside a runner's profile if you look that up. I think that is new too. |
| Derek Hay | Aug 5 2023, 10:19am | I'm in the 'too slow to care' category Mick :) |
| Niall Corrigan | Aug 6 2023, 7:36pm | I’m not sure if this is related but regarding the results of The Dargle 4 Peaks race today, if you select the “all” category, surely I finished in 18th place and not 17th? |
| Graham K. Bushe | Aug 6 2023, 7:47pm | The "All" category seems to place runners in finishing order, but the rank is m/f. Niall, your score in the Leinster Championship table is 18 for the 4 peaks. So it's recorded somewhere in the background, but not displayed. |
| Brian Kitson | Aug 30 2023, 2:19pm | What is the rationale for no longer showing Overall as the default view for results? |
| Graham K. Bushe | Aug 30 2023, 2:29pm | Gremlins |
| Mikey Fry | Aug 30 2023, 3:46pm | Just checking you old lads “brian”are looking at the forum:))) |
| Hazel Thompson | Aug 30 2023, 9:47pm | Similarly, why are the male and female results recorded separately in the “All” category? We already have separate “Male” and “Female” filters for that. In “All” shouldn’t everyone be given their position in the race as we are all running the same race? |
| Richard Nunan | Aug 31 2023, 11:25am | Work in progress - we are returning it back to the original view. Almost there Thanks Rich |
| Sarah Brady | Sep 5 2023, 6:20pm | Bit behind the curve on this as I'm only seeing it today, but ye really shouldn't change it back, the new format looks great. This is exactly what organizations like She Races are asking race directors to do, as it shows that there are two races, not one, and the female winner is as significant as the male winner. Overall places really don't matter and it devalues the female race to put them first. Was delighted to see this format on the IMRA site, it's very progressive, and it would be a shame to row back on it just because people need a little time to get used to it. |
| Alicia Christofi-Walshe | Sep 5 2023, 8:02pm | Well done IMRA on making the change. It's great to see the two separate categories. As Sarah said, it devalues the women's race, winner and podium with the oa at the forefront. |
| Denis Mc glynn | Sep 6 2023, 7:02am | I would like to see the all categories being first follow by whoever after that. To be progressive would be to put the juniors up second. I don't have a junior at the races yet. But to see a young member doing those runs they have to be applauded. There are so many alternatives. If there was a vote then putting all categories first would be my preference. Regarding the imra website. Its surely the best website and the easiest to navigate I have ever come across. So well done. |
| Niall Corrigan | Sep 6 2023, 10:10am | The only issue I see with the present format is the subsequent male numbering after the first and subsequent female finishers. If 20 athletes finish ahead of me, 10 female and 10 male, then I finished 21st not 11th. |
| Niall Corrigan | Sep 6 2023, 10:24am | Apologies, I’ve just spotted the biased flaw in my comment above. What happens if a female athlete wins the race outright, as Sorcha Loughnane did brilliantly in Kerry last weekend? Tough one for the committee to get right. I like that imra is being progressive but i still think an overall category should reflect where in a race you finish regardless of gender. |
| Sarah Brady | Sep 6 2023, 4:24pm | No Niall, in that instance you finish 11th in the men's race. From a competitive perspective they have to be treated as two separate races, it's the only way for female athletes to have a level playing field. If it was one overall race then women would very rarely win anything, athletes like Sorcha are the exception and not the rule. Having overall placing as the default view will generally place the female winner way down the list and not on an equal standing with the male winner. I'm sure this was the logic for making the change in the first place. |
| Niall Corrigan | Sep 6 2023, 6:23pm | I bow to your perspective Sarah which I, obviously, can’t share. I’m just coming from the perspective of a mid pack runner who has no issue being beaten by female athletes, not that I have any say in the matter. If, as you say, we are in separate races then do we do away with the overall category altogether? |
| Sarah Brady | Sep 6 2023, 6:59pm | I've no issue with the overall category being there as well if people are interested in seeing that. I was just happy to see it no longer the default view. :) |
| Peter O'Farrell | Apr 9 2024, 4:26pm | With the new improved results page defaulting to showing women finishers only could the percentage of winner please start from 100% of the women winner please. also - When we click the ALL tab could the finish order start at 1 and finish at the last placed person - instead of the current set up where it splits by gender as I go down the page. If I am beaten by 3 women and finish 10th I wasn't 7th in the overall race. And finally - could we scrap the 5 year results and go back to the 10 year gap of old (see what I did there..) thank you thank you.. |
| Kevin O'Riordan | Apr 9 2024, 4:54pm | The 5 year results thing was a motion passed at an AGM (as was having early starters ranked lower in results than people doing the official race). Probably fairer to wait till the next AGM to discuss changing back. The other stuff I agree with. |
| Alan Ayling | Apr 9 2024, 5:15pm | The 5 year age categories were proposed by Tom Blackburn as a way to align with World Masters categories. As Kevin said, it was voted upon at an AGM. The membership present at that AGM passed the vote and so the 5 year categories were introduced into results (but not prizes for individual races). Whether or not that vote should have been allowed take place as a motion is debatable. It was not a constitutional change, just an operational matter - normally the responsibility of the Executive Committee to discuss/implement/not implement etc. In this case, the Committee put the wishes of the membership into practice; the proposed 5 year categories came into being and were reflected in the Competition Rules. Should that have happened? Maybe, maybe not. Should it be reversed? Maybe, maybe not - but it's not something that will simply be reversed on the back of a forum question alone. Given the way it was backed by the membership at the time, it seems most sensible to raise it again at this year's AGM, where it can be discussed openly in the light of experience - what worked well about it, what didn't, what seems best for the future. The incoming committee should then have the decision on what stays in the Competition Rules, or doesn't. NOT a constitutional matter, NOT a motion. A damned good discussion though. As for the overall thing - it's on a list of IT items to be corrected, more or less in line with your ask Peter, if I understand it right. But the IT guy is a busy guy, with a lot to do - please bear with us and maybe ask again in a few weeks if there's no sign of progress. |
