- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Just for fun, here is the example given above by Sandpiper to show how the median might not capture the judges' intent.
A: 6.00, 6.50, 7.25, 7.75, 8.25, 8.25, 8.50, 8.75, 8.75
B: 7.75, 8.00, 8.00, 8.25, 8.25, 9.00, 9.00, 9.25, 9.50
Mean (all nine judges): A, 7.78; B, 8.55
Trimmed mean (throw out highest and lowest): A, 7.89; B, 8.54
Winsorized mean (11% at each end): A, 7.83; B, 8.55
Median: A, 8.25; B, 8.25
Conclusion? It seems like no matter how many examples we look at, no one wants to consider the obvious solution. Ordinal judging. Quality, not quantity. Judging, not measuring. I just can't wrap my mind around the ISU's claim that the best way to judge choreography, musical interpretation, and merit as performing art is to add up some decimal numbers.
A: 6.00, 6.50, 7.25, 7.75, 8.25, 8.25, 8.50, 8.75, 8.75
B: 7.75, 8.00, 8.00, 8.25, 8.25, 9.00, 9.00, 9.25, 9.50
Mean (all nine judges): A, 7.78; B, 8.55
Trimmed mean (throw out highest and lowest): A, 7.89; B, 8.54
Winsorized mean (11% at each end): A, 7.83; B, 8.55
Median: A, 8.25; B, 8.25
Conclusion? It seems like no matter how many examples we look at, no one wants to consider the obvious solution. Ordinal judging. Quality, not quantity. Judging, not measuring. I just can't wrap my mind around the ISU's claim that the best way to judge choreography, musical interpretation, and merit as performing art is to add up some decimal numbers.
Last edited: