Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine what all the fuss and secrecy is for when it should just be the top times.

Yes. Club swim, everything posted almost immediately. It’s not the 1950s anymore and everything is electronic. Lack of transparency from NVSL is concerning.

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine what all the fuss and secrecy is for when it should just be the top times.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NVSL reviews all the cards to make sure the times are entered in correctly - hence the 24 hour rule.

I used to think that was silly but this year we have had numerous issues with times being entered wrong and needing to be corrected.

22 events * 102 teams = 2,244 cards! How many people at the NVSL level are reviewing each and every one of those cards? I thought each division was responsible for verifying data accuracy, at the meet, hence the position of verifier.

They review the top 50 or so in each stroke.

They are verified at the meet and then again at the meeting that division coordinators attend. Mistakes are found but that’s why they double check.

Last year 1:17.96 was good enough for 70th place in boys 9-10 100 free relay, while 1:07.70 was 8th place. The additional NVSL level review you are describing doesn't guard against the case where someone fat fingers 1:07.70 into 1:17.70 and sends a team that was rightfully 8th outside of the scope of review for determining which teams ultimately make ASR.

As a table chief, “fat fingering” should not occur because there are two verifiers who check what was entered by data entry matches the time cards.

So why the extra review by the league then?

I don’t know. NVSL seems archaic to some degree IMO. Not sure why you’d need a seeding meeting. Should be electronic at this point.

Especially since all the individual divisions have sent out the results already. We need to all move to Meet Mobile.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NVSL reviews all the cards to make sure the times are entered in correctly - hence the 24 hour rule.

I used to think that was silly but this year we have had numerous issues with times being entered wrong and needing to be corrected.

22 events * 102 teams = 2,244 cards! How many people at the NVSL level are reviewing each and every one of those cards? I thought each division was responsible for verifying data accuracy, at the meet, hence the position of verifier.

They review the top 50 or so in each stroke.

They are verified at the meet and then again at the meeting that division coordinators attend. Mistakes are found but that’s why they double check.

Last year 1:17.96 was good enough for 70th place in boys 9-10 100 free relay, while 1:07.70 was 8th place. The additional NVSL level review you are describing doesn't guard against the case where someone fat fingers 1:07.70 into 1:17.70 and sends a team that was rightfully 8th outside of the scope of review for determining which teams ultimately make ASR.

As a table chief, “fat fingering” should not occur because there are two verifiers who check what was entered by data entry matches the time cards.

So why the extra review by the league then?

I don’t know. NVSL seems archaic to some degree IMO. Not sure why you’d need a seeding meeting. Should be electronic at this point.

Anonymous wrote:Kudos to host McLean for running an efficient and exciting D2 relay carnival. Kids had a lot of fun and parents/spectators had good viewing options. Rains just starting now!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NVSL reviews all the cards to make sure the times are entered in correctly - hence the 24 hour rule.

I used to think that was silly but this year we have had numerous issues with times being entered wrong and needing to be corrected.

22 events * 102 teams = 2,244 cards! How many people at the NVSL level are reviewing each and every one of those cards? I thought each division was responsible for verifying data accuracy, at the meet, hence the position of verifier.

They review the top 50 or so in each stroke.

They are verified at the meet and then again at the meeting that division coordinators attend. Mistakes are found but that’s why they double check.

Last year 1:17.96 was good enough for 70th place in boys 9-10 100 free relay, while 1:07.70 was 8th place. The additional NVSL level review you are describing doesn't guard against the case where someone fat fingers 1:07.70 into 1:17.70 and sends a team that was rightfully 8th outside of the scope of review for determining which teams ultimately make ASR.

As a table chief, “fat fingering” should not occur because there are two verifiers who check what was entered by data entry matches the time cards.

So why the extra review by the league then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NVSL reviews all the cards to make sure the times are entered in correctly - hence the 24 hour rule.

I used to think that was silly but this year we have had numerous issues with times being entered wrong and needing to be corrected.

22 events * 102 teams = 2,244 cards! How many people at the NVSL level are reviewing each and every one of those cards? I thought each division was responsible for verifying data accuracy, at the meet, hence the position of verifier.

They review the top 50 or so in each stroke.

They are verified at the meet and then again at the meeting that division coordinators attend. Mistakes are found but that’s why they double check.

Last year 1:17.96 was good enough for 70th place in boys 9-10 100 free relay, while 1:07.70 was 8th place. The additional NVSL level review you are describing doesn't guard against the case where someone fat fingers 1:07.70 into 1:17.70 and sends a team that was rightfully 8th outside of the scope of review for determining which teams ultimately make ASR.

As a table chief, “fat fingering” should not occur because there are two verifiers who check what was entered by data entry matches the time cards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NVSL reviews all the cards to make sure the times are entered in correctly - hence the 24 hour rule.

I used to think that was silly but this year we have had numerous issues with times being entered wrong and needing to be corrected.

22 events * 102 teams = 2,244 cards! How many people at the NVSL level are reviewing each and every one of those cards? I thought each division was responsible for verifying data accuracy, at the meet, hence the position of verifier.

They review the top 50 or so in each stroke.

They are verified at the meet and then again at the meeting that division coordinators attend. Mistakes are found but that’s why they double check.

Last year 1:17.96 was good enough for 70th place in boys 9-10 100 free relay, while 1:07.70 was 8th place. The additional NVSL level review you are describing doesn't guard against the case where someone fat fingers 1:07.70 into 1:17.70 and sends a team that was rightfully 8th outside of the scope of review for determining which teams ultimately make ASR.

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. Thunder right now. I hope it’s not the start of a bunch of pop up storms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. Thunder right now. I hope it’s not the start of a bunch of pop up storms.

Wuh…where?

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. Thunder right now. I hope it’s not the start of a bunch of pop up storms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NVSL reviews all the cards to make sure the times are entered in correctly - hence the 24 hour rule.

I used to think that was silly but this year we have had numerous issues with times being entered wrong and needing to be corrected.

22 events * 102 teams = 2,244 cards! How many people at the NVSL level are reviewing each and every one of those cards? I thought each division was responsible for verifying data accuracy, at the meet, hence the position of verifier.

They review the top 50 or so in each stroke.

They are verified at the meet and then again at the meeting that division coordinators attend. Mistakes are found but that’s why they double check.

Last year 1:17.96 was good enough for 70th place in boys 9-10 100 free relay, while 1:07.70 was 8th place. The additional NVSL level review you are describing doesn't guard against the case where someone fat fingers 1:07.70 into 1:17.70 and sends a team that was rightfully 8th outside of the scope of review for determining which teams ultimately make ASR.

That is very true. Hopefully reps and coaches are writing times from timer boards in and then comparing to the data. We do that at most meets. But there is always the chance something will slip through.