You can do it @genex! As long as the tournament was after January 1, 2016 just go to add it yourself. If you add it, you’re responsible for making sure the names of the participants are all correct though 
If anyone can dig up Challonge brackets from the last two years of SCS finals those would be fantastic to add as well.
is challonge also for only post 1/1/2016 tournies? I have one from Trailer Tom’s PinPin that I could add but that’s from 2014. The Pinburgh consolation was from like 2013 so too old to import…
Yeah, 2016-01-01 is the cutoff for all tournaments (also tournaments run on Match Play itself). I had to start somewhere.
What’s the best way to fix up tournaments that aren’t yours, but you participated in that are marked “No” that you would think should be included? My guess is that they’re “No” because of date-related issues, because the ones I’m looking at are head-to-head or group match events that I would have thought should have counted.
The most likely is that the TD waiting more than 7 days to close out the tournament. For now you can send me a list of tournament URLs and I’ll fix them up.
In the new year I’ll have a way for TDs to fix the dates themselves. When that day arrives you’ll have to bother each TD to fix their stuff
Thanks! I’ll drop you a PM.
Here’s a criticism/suggestion I hope you find helpful. Just something off the top of my head.
Criticism: Right now the page you go to on matchplay ratings to get a sense of what this means is the ranking page, which is just a sorted list based on lower bound. From someone who thinks that it is very useful that we are collecting data on actual head-to-head matches now, rather than just the IFPA results of events, it’s really easy to have your conversation end immediately when another player sees they are “lower than X” on the main ranking page. It’s easy to be dismissive of this as something useful when people think it’s a ranking system. It’s not a ranking system, though, it’s a rating system.
Your problem if you take this away is “how do we present these stats in an intersting way?”
My proposal after thinking about this for like 7 seconds is to put more leaderboards on the front page.
The page looks like this:
With a bunch of stats that aren’t really that interesting to individual players. Instead I would propose having these 6 stat boxes here be different types of leaderboards with 6 rows each. Something like Lower Bound, Rating, Upper Bound, RD, Underranked against IFPA ranking, and Up and Coming. Top 5 rows are the top 5 in each category, and the 6th row in Orange to match the site design shows how you rank in that category. The general idea is to 1. Dilute the focus on this as a ranking with 1 single way to rank players (by lower bound) and 2. positive encouragement and reinforcement for players at all levels of skill. I know it’s pretty much just social engineering stuff but people love a green arrow next to their name that says they went up by 582 spots.
This is the most excellent feedback @timballs – please keep sharing ideas like this. The numbers on the front page are definitely more for me than anyone else (they’re very useful as I tweak things, import more tournaments etc.).
I’m not sure the specific leaderboards you propose are the ones that are most valuable (upper bound is not useful for comparison for example), but I agree with your general sentiment that the front page should show data that’s valuable to the individual. I’ll just have to figure out what to display for visitors who are not signed in
I’m thinking stuff like this on the front page:
More? Please keep brainstorming!
Working with the fine pinball organizers of Seattle the ratings now include results from many hundred brackelope tournaments in the Seattle area as well as results from the past three seasons of Monday Night Pinball.
Putting out some more brainstorms here:
Wow! That’s great work.
Can someone point me again toward the rules/ structure for challenge matches? Some of us are at a NYE event and are already sharpening knives for midnight, but no one is sure how to proceed. Thanks!
I seem to remember there being a rule about not repeating games if the venue allows, have I got that right? Also, does loser choose game like at SCS? And who chooses 1st game, higher rated? Thanks for your help!
You have it 100% correct!
Question about MP challenge matches and how they affect rating…
Is the rating of the players only affected by the outcome, or is it based on the individual wins and losses within the match? In poking around a bit, I’m under the impression that it’s the latter, which came as a surprise.
You are correct that each individual result is counted. If you play best of seven and go to seven matches, the winner will receive 4 wins and 3 losses.
Same goes for Challonge brackets if the data is available (relevant for SCS brackets).
Is the TVA rating calculation (for tournament value) done using IFPA rating or Matchplay rating for tournaments that are run after 1st Jan 2018? Right now these does not seem to be the same, and since the announcement mentioned that IFPA would use the Matchplay ratings I was wondering if this is still on the to-do list, or if it’s not planned at all?
Will the challenge matches only affect matchplay ratings until (if it’s still pending) the ratings are used in the IFPA system? Or are these challenges not counted in terms or future IFPA tournaments currently, but might be in the future?
I’d like to implement these challenge matches in some way during our game nights and just wanted to be clear what they would do to your status in the pinball ratings world
There are steps involved in this process. Implementing a system right away where Keith Elwin is ranked 1463rd doesn’t make sense to me at this point.
The hope is that we’re able to drive people during 2018 to register for MatchPlay and start playing. We’re also trying to encourage IFPA sanctioned TD’s to submit their finals results through MatchPlay (or one of the other formats where @haugstrup can pull in that data.
During this time @Shep and @haugstrup can talk to eachother about how to pull that data over to the IFPA player accounts. From there we can list the MP Rating as one of the “official metrics”, include it in the profile page for each player, etc.
After that point we can begin discussing if/how MP Ratings can be integrated into the TVA process of the event calculation. Because this would change “every result for all of time” (formula change), we only have the chance to do this at the beginning of the year.
I think the best catch up data left for @haugstrup is to make DTM and PAPA software compatible with MatchPlay, that should put Keith up much higher 
