As announced in the last post, the scoring model for this year has flipped back to the one used in 2003 and 2004, namely 24 points on day 1 through to 1 point on Christmas Eve. The reasoning is simple \u2013 picking the correct item from a field of 24+ is harder than doing it from a field of 1. The game gets easier, provided you are attentive, as it progresses. It\u2019s always seemed illogical to me that the easier shot gets rewarded more. Imagine basketball but outside the line was 2 and inside was 3. It\u2019d be weird. Or hitting it over the boundary in cricket is 6 with a bounce or 4 without. The harder shot should be rewarded more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The system flipped after only two years due to significant peer pressure following the 2004 game being wrapped up with several days to spare. Only two or three players (from memory, but I cannot remember who!) lobbied me but they did so hard and ultimately successfully. I\u2019ve hated it ever since, but never had the gumption to change it back. It is part of the reason every time I make a change now I label it is \u201con trial\u201d so that I can easily change it back with the reasoning that I wasn\u2019t happy with the trial. Indeed, this change itself can be considered a trial and I\u2019ll look at it again if need be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The negative effect of the game being effectively dead days before the end isn\u2019t insignificant though. In its own way the old system incentivised being an active player all the way to the end because that is when the big points are being paid. Someone could make sure they pay attention early, get 3 or 4 good guesses in and then forget about it and win. The old way you have to be there all the way to the end to win. This almost seems a slam dunk argument for keeping it how it was, but\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
All the same points are on offer. You can effectively snooze the first 20 days the old way, then still come in and win. If low scoring days are a problem, then it doesn\u2019t really matter which way round the scale goes, the problem exists somewhere. I have briefly considered but not felt inclined to adopt two alternatives which I\u2019ll mention here:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So I come back to what I\u2019ve always felt. It is more logical to reward early guesses as they are harder to get right. The game might fizzle out early, it might not. The closer we get to Christmas the less time people have anyway so that might be for the best? Or I might be trying to justify it with made up reasons. The knock on effect might be less interest in the game as we go on, and there is another related issue here that I\u2019ll discuss tomorrow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I\u2019ll leave you with this though. As the easy guesses are now weighted less, scores in general will decrease and player\u2019s own PBs may become out of reach, so I\u2019ll have to code in a widget that works out what the overall world record and the personal bests of each player are using this year\u2019s scoring system so there is something more attainable to aim for. That might not be live for the start of play but bear with me! In the meantime, I have run the maths for every year bar 2005 (because I don\u2019t have complete data for that year unfortunately!) to see how it would have gone if scored the other way. I haven\u2019t resolved ties in this so in the few instances where there are ties for first the wrong player may be listed ahead, but you can have a look and see how you would have done, and how close it would have been. Theres a decent distribution or years where it would have been finished early and years where it wouldn\u2019t. It\u2019s linked and\/or embedded below for your viewing pleasure!<\/p>\n\n\n\n