meow
User
Newbie
| Posts: 1 |   |
Karma: 0
|
Re:uscf ratings - 2006/06/20 02:40
it takes to publish ratings, but I`m curious as to what you feel would be a reasonable time frame, and what you consider `publication`.
Here`s my estimate of how long it takes to `publish` a rating.
First, the TD has to finish the paperwork and send it to USCF, either on paper or on diskette. Let`s assume that takes a week, plus another few days in the mail. (Submitting ratings reports by the Internet is a viable concept, but authentication and funds transfer are just two of the issues that would need to be worked out before it could be implemented, and many TD`s are not yet computer-literate.)
Now the report has to be entered (if on paper) or the diskette processed, then queued up for the next ratings batch. This includes assigning membership numbers for any new members, verifying membership numbers for existing members, and making sure the crosstable is consistent. That may take another couple of days, especially for big events, so we`re at a full two weeks now.
My understanding is that the USCF waits a while before processing that report, to allow other reports for that time period to arrive and be processed in the same batch, this may be the most alterable delay in the whole process.
Let`s say this adds two weeks to the delay. We`re about a month removed from the event now.
Now the ratings report is processed. It shows up on the USCF website at the next update, which I think has just been changed from Friday to Monday so that the previous week`s batch of ratings is brought online the following Monday. That adds a few days, but we`re a solid month from the event by now.
Now as to `publication`. A rating isn`t OFFICIAL until it is published in a Ratings Supplement.
There are many GOOD reasons for this. For example, it would not be fair for someone to enter an event played in mid-July based on his rating in the June supplement only to show up and find out that his rating just went over 1800 on the website or in the August Supplement, and he`s been bumped up from the one-day RESERVE section to the two-day OPEN section, because the RESERVE section is restricted to players under 1800. (And as another player in the under 1800 section, I don`t know that I`d want to see an A player in MY section, if I wanted to play A players, I`d have entered the OPEN section in the first place!)
So, the OFFICIAL rating for an event the last week in July is still the one from the June Supplement.
Now we need calculate how long it takes to print up the supplement and get it to the TD.
So, let`s say it takes 2-3 weeks for a supplement to arrive at a TD`s door in the mail. (As a former TD, I`d sure like the new supplement several days BEFORE it goes into effect, I don`t enjoy staying up all night the evening before a tournament to update the ratings for players when the book arrives the day before the event starts, and is official for THAT event.)
That means that the June Supplement needs to be in the mail no later than about the 10th of May. Assume that it takes a couple of days to extract the ratings from the computer and typeset the Supplement, and let`s give two weeks for that information to be printed, stapled, and mailed by the printer.
That means that the supplement effective June 1st has to be off the USCF`s computer by the last week in April, and we`ve already determined that the ratings at the end of April would not contain any events played after the end of March.
So there we have it, it would be difficult and problematical for tournaments played at the end of July to use ratings that reflect events played after March 31st, but it might be possible for events from mid to late June to be available on the USCF website by the end of July. (And my estimates of how long each step takes could be off, it might well take longer.)
Now, as to ways to speed up the process.
It is probably financially impractical to publish a Ratings Supplement more than every other month.
It might be possible to cut about three weeks off my estimated timeline, by eliminating the hold time for ratings reports from the same time period and by paying a premium to the printer for priority press and handling time, and to send it by first class mail. As it stands, my estimate of two weeks at the printer might be shorter than it currently takes, I don`t know who prints the Supplements, but I think it is more local than the printer for Chess Life. The last I knew, those were being printed in Minnesota. At one point they were being printed in Dubuque IA.
I think most of the USCF employees would take umbrage at your comment that money is going into their pockets, since the implication is that it would be better spent elsewhere, on something important. To the USCF employees, it is a business, it is a job, it is what they do to pay the rent and buy groceries. They have the same right to a decent wage that you or I do. (I may donate a week or two of my time to chess and USCF every year, but I don`t work for free, do you?)
I don`t believe that USCF employees as a group are are overpaid, and I`m not sure I could come up with any specific examples of overpaid staff or managers, either. (I don`t have the salary records, nor do I want them.)
I believe that several of the recent departures at USCF were because of the ability to make more money working somewhere else, and I know one recent hire initially refused the job offer because it was unacceptably low, presumably USCF either raised the offer or this person is making a personal financial SACRIFICE to serve you. (Not many people are all that civic minded, especially when they go to pay their bills.)
Our executive director is making somewhere around $100,000/year, but that is NOT out of line for the management of an organization the size of USCF, about $7 million/year, and in fact I believe when Mike was hired some of the other applicants expressed disdain over the level of pay, because they could make a whole lot more somewhere else. Good management talent (and IMHO Mike Cavallo has proven that he is a very talented manager) doesn`t come cheap.
|
post new topic