USFA Posting Results

[millsisland]

According to the e-mail sent out by the national office this week:

Complete results including pools and brackets will be available on the new website, hopefully by the end of August.

Terrific! Now let's hope they are posted in a timely manner.

Mills

[Frank Pratt]

Cool; this is a big step out of the dark ages! Has the contract for the new site been awarded yet? Any idea who got the contract (Peet's company, perhaps?)

If they start using software at the tournaments that can export results directly to HTML (e.g. Fencing Time) or PDF, I don't see why the results could not be posted every evening (in the worst case scenario.) You can get Fencing Time to cough up an HTML copy of all results (pools, DEs, and final standings) within seconds of finishing an event. As I understand it, the current delay occurs because the results have to be "translated" once or twice before they can be posted on a web page.

[peet]

Cool; this is a big step out of the dark ages! Has the contract for the new site been awarded yet? Any idea who got the contract (Peet's company, perhaps?)

Unfortunately, no. We did not get the contract. In fact, the job of redeveloping the USFA website was split into two separate contracts: One for the general content aspects of the site (basically everything it does now only better, hopefully), and another contract for the tournament and membership management systems.

The first half contract was awarded to Dan Kellner back in the spring sometime, IIRC. The bidding process for the second (tournament & membership) half has not yet concluded, AFAIK.

We were bidding on the second part, but we did not even make the first round of elimination (of two), and so never even got a chance to discuss our proposal with the USFA in person. Honestly, I find it rather inexplicable that we were not deemed to be worthy of a closer look.

I say "inexplicable" for two reasons: As you might imagine, I think we are the best firm for the job (but of course i'd be biased about that). The other reason, is this: I can't explain why we were not chosen to continue with the proposal process, because no one from the USFA has yet explained it to me. So far, all I have is a very short "thanks but no thanks" type email, and no other information.

There may be some very good reason why were were not chosen, but I would have no way of knowing what it is.

I have to admit to feeling a bit angry that the USFA would use our system as long as it is free (the RYC/SYC organizers are instructed to use askFRED.net, and we also develop & host the referee database), but then not give us a fair shake (IMHO) when it comes time for someone to do the job for $.

Argh.

If they start using software at the tournaments that can export results directly to HTML (e.g. Fencing Time) or PDF, I don't see why the results could not be posted every evening (in the worst case scenario.) You can get Fencing Time to cough up an HTML copy of all results (pools, DEs, and final standings) within seconds of finishing an event. As I understand it, the current delay occurs because the results have to be "translated" once or twice before they can be posted on a web page.

Actually, the Fencing Time type possibility would be even cooler than that, since FT puts out all that data in XML files in addition to the formats you mentioned. So a website can do more than just list the results, but also store all of it in a database that allows for any application imaginable: display in any format, sharing with other websites, automatic calculation of points standings, all kinds of searching and statistical queries, who knows what else.

(Like a certain website I know of? ... )

-p

[Frank Pratt]

Wow, that was a low blow. I can see why you're mad ! How many of the other companies have an up and running site that has very successfully managed fencing tournaments and results for the past few years? I cannot think of any existing product that combines online registration and result reporting with a solid event management program. As you have said before, Fencing Time needs more features before it's ready for NACs (i.e. repechage, seeding via. point standings, client/server or networking features, etc,) but implementing these changes certainly would have been possible, especially with the financial backing of a USFA contract. Do the other companies already have software that can handle fencing tournaments? If not, the USFA is going to pay them a lot more $$ than it would cost to upgrade Fencing Time with the appropriate features. The new company is also not going to be able to build onto askFRED (or simply use FRED as it is.) They’re going to have to develop a results/pre-registration website from scratch!

Telling you "thanks, but no thanks" after all the blood and sweat you've poured into askFRED (and the free services you've already given the USFA) is unbelievable. At the very least, they owe you a more detailed explanation as to why you didn't make the first cut. Yes, there could be a very simple, reasonable obstacle that killed your bid, but just sending you the same form letter that everyone else got is just not right.

Oh yeah, I forgot that XML was FRED’s native language. The possibilities for expansion are pretty much endless, as you and Craig have shown! :wink:

[peet]

Thanks Frank, I appreciate your supportive words!

Yes, there could be a very simple, reasonable obstacle that killed your bid, but just sending you the same form letter that everyone else got is just not right.

And some might say that if we'd been told what the simple, reasonable obstacle was, we might have a simple, reasonable solution for it.

In other news......

Just to make sure it's clear to readers: I did not develop Fencing Time, I did askFRED.net. Dan Berke is the FT developer. Quite often people don't realize that our two products are separate (but closely integrated). It's easy to miss the distinction, since Dan and i worked closely together to make sure that our two projects would play nice with each other.

And I'm sure Dan would want me to mention that he is currently implementing repechage, seeding by national points, and a number of other features that bring FT close to being mature enough for NAC type use. In fact, i think he's done with most of those features, and just has to finalize and test things before releasing a new version.

More about FT here.

That being said, It's my understanding that the USFA plans to stick with xSeed (their current program) for the time being. Hopefully one day Dan will be able to persuade them to consider FT.


-p

[Frank Pratt]

Thanks Frank, I appreciate your supportive words!

No problem. You and Dan have certainly earned it.

That being said, It's my understanding that the USFA plans to stick with xSeed (their current program) for the time being. Hopefully one day Dan will be able to persuade them to consider FT.

If they are going to contiue with Xseed, it's going to be interesting to see how are they are going to get the complete results (pools/DEs included) posted within a reasonable time frame. If Xseed can't export just the final standings directly to HTML, XML, etc. (my understanding is that it can't,) then how easy is it going to be to export all this data onto a web site?
[/QUOTE]

[dberke]

As Peet mentioned, I have been hard at work on the next version of Fencing Time. This one will be a big upgrade with a lot of new features - I've already implemented repechage and seeding using points (national or otherwise). I've also added the option to allow fence-off-for-third place in DEs, which is another oft-requested feature.

There have been a lot of additional changes to improve the usability - over the years I've found that there were a lot of features and options provided by FT that people didn't realize were there. I've "unhidden" those features so that they're easier to find.

For anyone who's interested, I keep a sporadically-updated FT development blog at http://fencingtime.blogspot.com.

The focus of the upcoming release (I'm shooting for November) will still mainly be targeted for club/division use. I do have hopes, however, that the USFA will be interested in exploring the possibility of using FT for national events at some point. That will require me to setup a client/server system, which will be a big task. If the USFA shows some interest, I certainly will make that a high priority - but if they don't, it's probably going to be a lower priority issue since few clubs would need such a setup.

In the meantime, both Peet and I will keep working to improve FT and FRED, as well as their integration with each other. I hope that someday the USFA realizes that we've done 99% of the work for them already and chooses to use our system over their current "stuck in the '90s" approach!

Dan

[Inquartata]

There seems to be a certain lack of transparency in the USFA's selection processes. Does anyone ( oh, Brad? ) know how this is conducted? How did we get THS? How did we get the "official photographer", and United Airlines? What is the process followed, and who makes the decisions, and on what bases?

[oso97]

Unfortunately, no. We did not get the contract. In fact, the job of redeveloping the USFA website was split into two separate contracts: One for the general content aspects of the site (basically everything it does now only better, hopefully), and another contract for the tournament and membership management systems.

The first half contract was awarded to Dan Kellner back in the spring sometime, IIRC. The bidding process for the second (tournament & membership) half has not yet concluded, AFAIK.

We were bidding on the second part, but we did not even make the first round of elimination (of two), and so never even got a chance to discuss our proposal with the USFA in person. Honestly, I find it rather inexplicable that we were not deemed to be worthy of a closer look.

I say "inexplicable" for two reasons: As you might imagine, I think we are the best firm for the job (but of course i'd be biased about that). The other reason, is this: I can't explain why we were not chosen to continue with the proposal process, because no one from the USFA has yet explained it to me. So far, all I have is a very short "thanks but no thanks" type email, and no other information.

There may be some very good reason why were were not chosen, but I would have no way of knowing what it is.

I have to admit to feeling a bit angry that the USFA would use our system as long as it is free (the RYC/SYC organizers are instructed to use askFRED.net, and we also develop & host the referee database), but then not give us a fair shake (IMHO) when it comes time for someone to do the job for $.

This is absolutely rediculous. Are we going to be stuck with another unusable, unworkable system (like THS for example) just because some is the drinking buddy of a member of the USFA administration or national office staff? Rediculous. Unimaginable. What were they thinking? AskFred is quite simply, the single best thing that has happened to the structure of the sport since I have been involved. Period.

Okay, Brad, the Congress of the USFA elected you as one of our reps to the BOD. Since the Congress itself has absolutely ZERO ability to direct questions to the admin (witness the utter lack of a "new business" section on the Congress Agenda), and I'm a Congress Delegate, I'm asking you, as our representative, to find out what selection criteria were used, and WHO exactly made the decision. And it to be made public, utlizing the USFA's own email distribution system that they use to send out the newsletters. If you need more Congress Delegates to second, I know we can get them to speak up. I'm thinking about 500 words on the subject, written by either Michael or Nancy would be a good start.

[peet]

Uh-Oh.

Thanks, oso97, for your vote in favor of FRED. You've always been a big supporter of the system, and many times have helped out tons making it run.

That being said, I really wasn't trying to "incite the natives to riot" with my post in this thread. I do still have some legit channels through which i'm trying to get some info to better understand why we were not chosen to continue with the bidding process. Hopefully they will pan out soon.

I am definitely frustrated with how things have turned out so far, but it's also important to me to deal with the people at the USFA in a cooperative way. Maybe my original post was a bit ill-advised.

In the end, I really mostly wanted to do the job because there are just too many really awesome things that we could do if tournament management was integrated from the top to the bottom (from NAC to local), and if askFRED.net and USFencing.org could share data between themselves.

Sure, it would have been great to get the $ too (i've been losing $ for years on FRED), but I didn't start doing it as a money making thing, it was because there are so many great things that can be done to make life easier & better for fencers & tournament organizers.

And yes, if we end up with another THS type situation, I'll be really bummed.

Anyhow, thanks again oso and the rest of FRED's users.

-p

[Frank Pratt]

I do still have some legit channels through which i'm trying to get some info to better understand why we were not chosen to continue with the bidding process. Hopefully they will pan out soon.

I certainly think that's the best way to go about it. It keeps your foot in the door, which is good. After all, there's no telling what the future might have in store....

[oiuyt]

There seems to be a certain lack of transparency in the USFA's selection processes. Does anyone ( oh, Brad? ) know how this is conducted? How did we get THS? How did we get the "official photographer", and United Airlines? What is the process followed, and who makes the decisions, and on what bases?

I believe that the website decisions have been/are being made by Suxie Paxton's committee (Media something something committee?). From what I remember, 11 companies submitted bids for the second half of the website project. 5 were selected to make presentations to the committee. I believe that that number has been, or is going to be, further cut to X finalists (2?), and then a winning bid selected.

Originally this process was announced to be completed in time for the system to be up and running by end of September. I suspect that the timeline has slipped somewhat, but I don't know where in the process they currently are (and, indeed, the winning bid may already have been selected and preparing for going public in September, I merely suspect that this is not the case).

United Airlines is undoubtedly legacy of them being the official airline of the USOC.

The official photographer, I believe, is under the ProPrintWear banner, in which case selection would be by Phil Daly.

If I recall correctly, THS submitted an unsolicited bid to cover USFA hotel booking. In which case they were likely selected by the national office staff.

Other official sponsors are likely selected either by the national office staff or the fundraising committee. Or are USOC sponsors that we get through a trickle-down process.

As long as we're talking on a somewhat related subject, on another thread YeOldeArmorer mentioned ProPrintWear paying the USFA 20% of revenue for the USFA logo. PPW donates 20% of all revenue, whether using the USFA logo or not, to the USFA. If PPW seems to get a better deal than most other companies, they also provide massively more support to the USFA than any other company.

-B :)

[Inquartata]

Thanks, Brad.

Are the final selections also decided by committee, or by individuals? And is it mostly on the basis of low bids, perceived highest quality for the money, or what?

[oso97]

Yes, it would be good to know the criteria that are being utilzied to make the decision and why the askFRED system was excluded from the final bidding.

Heck, it would also be nice if the committee reports that we were promised at the USFA Congress meeting were actually available. Theoretically, this information should be in there, yes?

[oiuyt]

Thanks, Brad.

Are the final selections also decided by committee, or by individuals? And is it mostly on the basis of low bids, perceived highest quality for the money, or what?

I assume it's more complex than just looking at the bottom line. The decision is being made by a committee.

Heck, it would also be nice if the committee reports that we were promised at the USFA Congress meeting were actually available. Theoretically, this information should be in there, yes?

The winning bid would be announced in such minutes, but the other finalists and where they were lacking almost certainly wouldn't be. It would be completely inappropriate. On the other hand, I think it would be reasonable to expect non-winning bidders to get at least a brief note about where their bid failed (or, in the case that it wasn't a problem with the bid, but merely the fact that another candidate was stronger, a note to that effect).

-B :)

[oso97]

Actually, what I was really hoping for at the Congress meeting was a presentation of what exactly was being looked for in design for a new website. To hopefully include tournament services (online registration for NACs) and up-to-date publication of membership data (status and rankings). In addition, a discussion of what criteria were going to be used to evaluate. At the very least, this should have been (or could still be!) distributed in paper form. Given the ongoing issues and general importance here with the USFA website (to include tournament services and membership data), and the fact that the project was in progess at the time, plus the fact that there might actually be opinions represented at Congress that the committee making the decision might have at least had the curtesy of soliciting, it would not be inappropriate for a discussion to be held at Congress. It would be possible to discuss the details of the selection criteria, without going into individual bids.

But then again, this Congress meeting was extraordinarily disorganized and poorly managed. There were no committee reports, no USFA budget, nothing beyond some pretty much empty words by our officers, and a ratification of Executive Committee decisions on the Pennsilvania situation (that took about 20 minutes longer than it needed to). With the exception of the election of the BOD reps, there was precicely zero opportunity for Congress Delegates to express themselves.

The "website issue" is just one of a series of things that the Executive Committee should have been reporting on, outlining the important factors of, and soliciting input concerning. Although, I must say it was par for the course for this group of officers, who've been the least communicative group I've seen. But, I guess it was obvious how little the adminstration thinks of the Congress. It was QUITE evident on Nancy Anderson's face that she was extraordinarily upset at the representatitves the Congress elected to the BOD. Given that, I guess I really shouldn't be surprised that our input wasn't solicited on anything else.