I raised this in the old zwiftpower forum. Now that you have worked through some other issues maybe you can have a look.
I really like the race ranking calculation but it has a major flaw in the way it is calculated.
Basically only finishing riders are included in the formula for calculating. This means anyone who is part of race but does not cross the line has no effect on ranking performance which I think is unfair.
Every race there are large groups starting but not finishing (various reasons) and they should be part of the way rankings are awarded.
Keep the race QUALITY calculation the same this is right and fair in current method.
Adjust the average ranking of finishers to be average ranking of starters in the points per place calculation. This can be anyone finishing first KM as an example.
I think that all of your comments are talking about ranking points for a given race and I agree with you.
Another topic for discussion is the assigned Cat of a racer and when they elect to race above that Cat. Racing up should be encouraged and is the opposite of a sandbagger. What if the racer only does sprint races less than 20 minutes though and is never assigned a higher Cat? He races and wins B Cat races but is still ranked as a C Cat. It is kind of riding below 3.2 on occasion to keep yourself as a C but then racing sprint B races to gain the overall #1 C ranking.
That’s definitely an issue. There are a few other problems with ranking and rider behaviour. I would like them looked at individually so as not to complicate matters.
I first got alerted to the issue I posted when I raced wheel to wheel up the alpe only to have the rider quit in last 100m. He had his reasons (weird) but I was denied the opportunity of the improved ranking points by the action.
If you look at live tab on zwiftpower there are always people dropping out mid race and they are not all tech issues.
@Wattwell Yes, there is definitely an opportunity here.
I placed #3,500/4,200 in the Haute Route GC, which required completing 3 stages.
There were 23,000 stage completions reported on ZP (which wouldn’t have been 23,000 unique riders, and would unlikely have been less than a third of that unless people were repeating each stage multiple times. Let’s call it 12,000), so now my finishing place should be 3,500/12,000.
But that was 23,000 completions, which ignores the non-finishers, non-starters, and registered-but-no-shows. Adding those back in might double the total number of participants. Or more. Or less.
There were also several disqualified riders. They would’ve been captured in the 23,000 number, but not the 4,200 number.
So I know I finished 3,500 of the riders that completed all three stages without being disqualified, but I truly have no idea how many total participants were present.
@Clive_Norton I counted up just over 1517 people completed all 3 stages in Cat C. Zwift seem to have counted people that have done 2 x Cat C races and one Cat B (or A) but that adds no more than 200 - 300 people to the total completed 3 Cat C stages.
Whilst they have worked through some issues, they still have a bunch of stuff they broke when they moved the servers that need addressing before they could/should look at dev work.
Having said that, I totally agree with you. And I’m ok with people joining and then exiting early for whatever reasons, but when Zwift give us tools such as Race Quality that guide us and the Quality changes as people drop out early, I do feel a bit cheated.
But I dont think Zwift will put any effort into addressing this (or fixing the stuff they broke). They barely look after racers as it is and they have demonstrated over the past several months that even with very high visibility issues they cause to racers, they will still not put in adequate resourcing/investment to help us. Wish it was different.
I grabbed all the ZP data and have it in a spreadsheet.
23000 stages completed by Zwiftpower racers (thats a different number than you see on screen for start as you are counting non-ZP racers). Not all events were heavily attended - 1st event for example had a total of 439 riders across all Cats.
people that entered wrong cats (DQ)
people that exceeded ZP thresholds
people that only did 1 stage
people that only did 2 stages
people that did 3 different Cats
533 Completed 3 all Cat A stages
1309 Completed 3 all Cat B stages
1514 completed 3 all Cat C stages
586 completed 3 all Cat D stages
91 completed 3 all Cat E stages
So thats 12000 of the 23000 activities accounted for right there.
You’ve been able to grab the data from ZP in a way that I’ve yet to work out - I can only find the 3 stages in which I competed, and the final results which show as empty.
You and I are analyzing the data with different goals.
If, hypothetically, 30,000 riders participated, and only 20 riders finished all 3 stages, it would be very wrong to describe the rider in 20th position as being in last place. In my mind, that rider finished 20th of 30,000.
I’m trying to work out for this event (and any other), how to obtain the number equivalent to the 30,000 in the hypothetical example above.
If you would be so kind, can you tell me from your spreadsheet how many uniquely different riders’ names appear?
If I correctly understand what is in your list, that will provide the number of riders that completed at least one stage.
There is another number I would like, that counts unique riders when including the DNF, DNS, and DQ results.
Finished - that was tedious.
Including the disqualifications (DQ), there were 31,216 finishing records, involving 16,736 unique riders.
So now when I tell my wife I finished 3,500/16,700, it’ll sound better than 3,500/4,200
Not included are
1/ The results from Saturday at 1500 EST - they are absent from ZP.
2/ DNF - Riders that started a stage and did not finish one.
3/ DNS - Riders that registered for a stage and did not start one.
4/ Riders not on ZP