Survey: your take on the 2015-2016 SOV tables

Following the release of the 2015-2016 SOV Tables, I read with curiosity the furor over whether the extent (or lack-thereof) of the changes. Some say its too much, some say its too little. Few put an exact value to their statements.

So, I want to collect some statistics on what you think the correct SOV should be. Below, I have created a web survey on jotform, to poll Singles jumps from 2A through 4A, because it seemed that most of the heated arguments revolved around those jumps.

Survey on 2015-2016 SOV tables

It's a very basic poll, but it would be interesting to see what the average consensus is. When I get enough data, I promise to report on them.

This is my first time starting a thread. Mods, please (re)move this thread as you deem appropriate.

Very nice poll!! You even included an option for what the fall deduction should be, which was wise. The -GOE scores for all jumps needs to be larger but the fall deduction should actually only be a half point, since -3 GOE is very nearly as bad as falling anyway. I'm putting my numbers in. For everyone else who agrees with my method and wants numbers to compare for the poll, here are my values that I've systematically worked out.

I forgot I don't include Quad Axel in my list. Nobody has even come close to landing one in practice, and it's something that is just completely begging to cause injuries to those who attempt it, so I currently ignore it.

I suppose a (slightly conservative) accurate value for it would be 18.5 points, with -3.6 for each -GOE, +1.1 for each +GOE. The underrotated version would be 14.8 base value and -2.9 for each -GOE.

Well done! The survey really has a "scientific" look. This will be interesting My biggest concern about the current SOV, however, is with combos: their value should vary according to what the second jump is (or to what you put after the half loop), even if this makes the calculation more complex, and the GOE should be different, too, since the BV is higher

FSGMT said:

Well done! The survey really has a "scientific" look. This will be interesting My biggest concern about the current SOV, however, is with combos: their value should vary according to what the second jump is (or to what you put after the half loop), even if this makes the calculation more complex, and the GOE should be different, too, since the BV is higher

Click to expand...

that sounds good.

FSGMT said:

Well done! The survey really has a "scientific" look. This will be interesting My biggest concern about the current SOV, however, is with combos: their value should vary according to what the second jump is (or to what you put after the half loop), even if this makes the calculation more complex, and the GOE should be different, too, since the BV is higher

Click to expand...

Thanks to those who have responded! I've received about a dozen responses to date, and I will leave the survey open for a few more days in case anyone else wants to complete the survey. (Read: those who haven't, please complete the survey! Everyone's input is appreciated.)

I contemplated adding jump combinations to the survey, but concluded that it will be rather more tricky to ensure the same polling consistency. For solo jumps, it's just numbers in a structured format, whereas for combos, the types of possible responses are just too broad. E.g., make certain types of combinations worth more if Condition A is met, but a bit less if they made Error B, and exactly what point values and exactly what are A and B? Or make this jump worth more in combo but not that jump when it's done in Manner C, etc... it gets complicated to create a survey to capture all of that and my survey design skills aren't at that level yet. Nonetheless, I agree I'd like to know the consensus for combo point values, so if anyone has any experience with designing complicated surveys, let me know!