FRED <-> F.net integration

[peet]

Hi all you fans of FRED and Fencing.net-


Craig and I have a new feature in beta release for you guys that just can't get enough:

On the "More Info", "Who's Coming" and "Results" pages for tournaments on FRED, you will find a "Discuss this tournament at Fencing.net" link. If a thread has not already been created for that tournament, you will be taken to the form to start one. If a thread has already been created via FRED's link, the link will take you directly to that thread.

"Two great tastes that taste great together!"

Try, enjoy, let us know what you think......

-p

[Sciurus-Rex]

Way cool. Thanks.

[fencergal33]

I discovered it before you even had a chance to post the thread.....very cool indeed!

[JEC]

Then, perhaps, the USFA will eventually learn that the FRED-F.Net is the obvious choice for webmaster/webdeveloping services.

[OROD]

Man, wouldnt it be awesome if FRED and fencing.net and usfa.org were ALL integrated in a single site... that would rule!


.

[Frank Pratt]

Man, wouldnt it be awesome if FRED and fencing.net and usfa.org were ALL integrated in a single site... that would rule!

Then, perhaps, the USFA will eventually learn that the FRED-F.Net is the obvious choice for webmaster/webdeveloping services.

Agreed. 100%. Fencing Time is pretty much ready for the NAC level. I think the only thing that's lacking is the ability to manage an event simultaneously on multiple computers. I hope the USFA will consider replacing Xseed at that time!

One slight change I would make to the latest integration. Right now, clicking on a "discuss this tournament" link opens F.Net in the same window. IMO, It would be better to have it open F.Net in a new window, if this could be done without angering the pop-up blockers that are becoming more and more common.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

One slight change I would make to the latest integration. Right now, clicking on a "discuss this tournament" link opens F.Net in the same window. IMO, It would be better to have it open F.Net in a new window, if this could be done without angering the pop-up blockers that are becoming more and more common.

if you use Mozilla Firefox, (and if you have windows and don't like viruses, you should...) you can right click on the link (or almost any other link in the world) and select "open this link in a new window" or "open this link in a new tab"....

[oiuyt]

Agreed. 100%. Fencing Time is pretty much ready for the NAC level. I think the only thing that's lacking is the ability to manage an event simultaneously on multiple computers. I hope the USFA will consider replacing Xseed at that time!

I don't believe the USFA uses multiple computers for a single event. My understanding is that they designate a specific computer (and operator) for each event, rather than have all of the computers working in parrallel. I have not worked BC nationally so I can't say for sure, but I spend enough time hanging out around the table that I have a general sense for how most of what they do works.

-B

[FencingKitten]

Agreed. 100%. Fencing Time is pretty much ready for the NAC level. I think the only thing that's lacking is the ability to manage an event simultaneously on multiple computers. I hope the USFA will consider replacing Xseed at that time!

I disagree here. I'm still a little new, but I've been getting training from SW section's favorite bout committee person, and I'll be a trainee on the platform at Reno in two weeks. I'm a little more familiar with XSeed than FT, especially since I have only seen and not played with 2.0, but I doubt the USFA would switch without some serious convincing.

(edit: darn my taking time to look stuff up! oiuyt beats me for speed)
The NAC events do not run one event on multiple computers, or at least did not in Houston - I'll find out about a multi-room NAC at Reno. The computers each can and I understand do run multiple events, but that's what happens when you have three computers and between three and five events a day.

My understanding of FencingTime is that it has a couple of problems. One is that the pool sheets it provides give entirely too much information - name, fencer rating, club, section... more info than the ref needs by far. Some refs like it, some don't, as I've heard it. XSeed provides pool sheets that have space for writing in cards, and provides only fencer name in the chart. Also, I understand FT makes DEs more difficult, especially as the tables get larger and larger, because you have to find the bout you want visually, and click on it. XSeed requires that you select the table that the bout you need is in, then prompts for a fencer number. It fills in the results, you add score and referee, you move on.

Is there information I'm missing that would make these points wrong?

[oiuyt]

One is that the pool sheets it provides give entirely too much information - name, fencer rating, club, section... more info than the ref needs by far. Some refs like it, some don't, as I've heard it.

One useful bit is that it helps me locate "conflicts" in my pools. I know a small fraction of my clubmates (I don't fence as often as I ought, and when I do go it's with the adults ROW fencers, whereas most of our nationally-active members fall into either the cadet/junior category, are epeeists, or both and generally fence at different times than I do). I've discovered "conflicts" after the conclusion of pools (granted I clearly wasn't biased, I didn't know that I had been reffing a clubmate, but there's certainly the possibility of a perception of bias there).

Can also be useful in IDing the fencers a bit faster (okay, fencer #3 is the one wearing the FC patch, yup, that makes sense, Metro NYC division, etc.).

Overall though I'd just as soon not have the extra information.

-B

[telkanuru]

The NE division uses En Guard for everything from Y10 events to the Pomme de Terre, and it should be noted our large events run significantly faster than any National event of comparable size (or even proportionally).

Mainly, though, I find time delays at National events to be the result of poor judgement calls rather than software (double flighting BOTH JME and JWS at JOs, etc.)...

The main argument for FT/EG, though, is they both provide actually useful result printouts.

[dberke]

I disagree here. I'm still a little new, but I've been getting training from SW section's favorite bout committee person, and I'll be a trainee on the platform at Reno in two weeks. I'm a little more familiar with XSeed than FT, especially since I have only seen and not played with 2.0, but I doubt the USFA would switch without some serious convincing.

Trust me, I'm working on it! I've been talking with the people who have input on that decision, and I'm hoping to make a list of the features they want so that I can add them to FT.

My understanding of FencingTime is that it has a couple of problems. One is that the pool sheets it provides give entirely too much information - name, fencer rating, club, section... more info than the ref needs by far. Some refs like it, some don't, as I've heard it. XSeed provides pool sheets that have space for writing in cards, and provides only fencer name in the chart. Also, I understand FT makes DEs more difficult, especially as the tables get larger and larger, because you have to find the bout you want visually, and click on it. XSeed requires that you select the table that the bout you need is in, then prompts for a fencer number. It fills in the results, you add score and referee, you move on.

Is there information I'm missing that would make these points wrong?

FT has always allowed you to disable the printing of fencer ratings on the forms. I'll be adding the ability to also disable printing the clubs for those who want that feature.

Another feature I will be adding the the ability to enter DE bouts by an ID number. This will make it so you don't have to search for the bout in the tree to enter the scores. Bouts will have unique ID numbers across all events, so you'll be able to enter the score for any event, not just the one you're currently viewing.

Up until now, I've primarily been focussed on making FT useful for tournaments at the divisional level. With the release of version 2.0 last month, I added a lot of the features that people had been requesting since it was first released in 2002. Now that those features are done, I'll be able to focus on the features that are more specific to running larger tournaments like NACs. Once those features are in, I'm sure the USFA will strongly consider using it for national events.

Dan

[FencingKitten]

Dan,

Rep for informative and polite! I really appreciate your thorough address of my remarks. I really look forward to seeing an FT with these features, especially the bout ID.

The main argument for FT/EG, though, is they both provide actually useful result printouts.

I'm curious as to what you mean by this. Looking at my last sectional results where I actually did anything useful :P I find the printouts tell me exactly what I need to know. Admittedly, I cheated a little and used my BC connections at that tournament to get copies of pools, initial DE tables, round of 8 tables, and results.

[KD5MDK]

Trust me, I'm working on it! I've been talking with the people who have input on that decision, and I'm hoping to make a list of the features they want so that I can add them to FT.

The requirements of a National Tournament are somewhat different than other tournaments. I'd say the thing that would really help you would be to do everything they want, and to look for ways to improve things they haven't thought of.

FT has always allowed you to disable the printing of fencer ratings on the forms. I'll be adding the ability to also disable printing the clubs for those who want that feature.

Dan

I've never seen it activated, but that is of course a user issue.
My issue with printing ratings is it tempts you to give the "benefit of the doubt", in judgement calls, to the "better fencer". You think "That might have been a beat, that might have been a parry. But he's a lot better than the other guy, he probably knew what he was doing." Not that you're necessarily affected by it, but better not to have to worry. Of course, same issues arrises anyway when you already know one or both of the fencers.

With regard to the clubs issue and finding conflicts, I know everybody I'd have a conflict with, from my current club or even my past one. However, perhaps the easiest way would be to print a list of clubs represented (including secondary affiliations, which don't get shown otherwise) as a list, not associated with any particular fencer. That way you can look at it, see if there's one of your clubs on there, and hand it back/whatever as the situation dictates.

(I remember Jerry Benson at Houston saying when handed a DE slip "I've got a conflict. Both these fencers and my mother are women. They're sisters."

[FencingKitten]

New topic, new post.

I realized earlier while perusing the tournaments section that there are a couple of threads for the same tournament. Will these/can these be combined, or can there be a control put on number of threads for the same tournament, or did I just happen to notice the freak accident?

Other thing I thought might be nice (but can't think how to implement) would be to include the section that the tournament is from in the thread title - I usually recognize the titles of my local tournaments, but might otherwise miss a few. I can still cross-check it to Fred, though.

[dberke]

The requirements of a National Tournament are somewhat different than other tournaments. I'd say the thing that would really help you would be to do everything they want, and to look for ways to improve things they haven't thought of.

I've spoken with the folks that run the NACs and I am planning on volunteering to work the bout committe at a future NAC or perhaps Summer Nationals. (Thanks to oso97 for the recommendation to do this!) This will allow me to get a good feel for how they run things. Once I've had that "insider look", I'll be able to tailor FT to how they like to work, as well as identify any areas that can be improved upon.

I've never seen it activated, but that is of course a user issue.
My issue with printing ratings is it tempts you to give the "benefit of the doubt", in judgement calls, to the "better fencer". You think "That might have been a beat, that might have been a parry. But he's a lot better than the other guy, he probably knew what he was doing." Not that you're necessarily affected by it, but better not to have to worry. Of course, same issues arrises anyway when you already know one or both of the fencers.

I hadn't considered that, but I think you raise a good point. Initially I took the "more information is good" approach but in this case, it may be used for evil rather than good!

With regard to the clubs issue and finding conflicts, I know everybody I'd have a conflict with, from my current club or even my past one. However, perhaps the easiest way would be to print a list of clubs represented (including secondary affiliations, which don't get shown otherwise) as a list, not associated with any particular fencer. That way you can look at it, see if there's one of your clubs on there, and hand it back/whatever as the situation dictates.

(I remember Jerry Benson at Houston saying when handed a DE slip "I've got a conflict. Both these fencers and my mother are women. They're sisters."

Eventually, I'd like to add a referee database to FT so that referees can automatically be assigned to pools/DEs. FT would track the club/division/section affiliation of the referees and try to avoid conflicts with fencers in the pool/DEs. That's a more long-term feature but I'll get it done eventually!

Dan

[veeco]

I think this is a great first step.

What I would love to see in terms of integration would be a way to link FRED ids to F.net logins. This would allow F.net to have links to a person's results in the FRED database, so we could see how well all the forum members do.

Obviously, for the few who want to protect their identity, we could have this be done on a volunteering basis, i.e. some kind of checkbox in the Fnet or FRED profile that allows one to publish their information, and specify their FRED or F.net login.

What do you think?

[Frank Pratt]

I think the biggest advantage, by far, that Fencing Time has over Xseed is online tournament registration and the ability to post complete results ("complete," meaning all pools and DE/Rep. trees) on the Internet within a few minutes of the last touch being scored in the gold medal bout. This is a literal truth at venues that can provide wireless or wired Internet access. If there is not Internet access a the BC table, someone could spend a few minutes to post the day's results from their hotel room that evening. Why design an Xseed-compatible online registration scheme from the ground up when FRED/Fencing Time can already do this?! Right now, Xseed results have to be converted to a web-friendly format to be posted on a web site, and each pool sheet and DE/Rep. tree has to be manually scanned in to be posted on the web site. This process is very cumbersome and archaic, compared to what fencing time/FRED can do! The dozens of PDF files that are required for each tournament are going to fill up server space a lot faster than a several graphics-free XML files for each tournament Granted, this might not be an issue, depending on how much space usfenincg.org has available. Furthermore, the way the results are posted on usfenincg.org does not allow you to search the pools and DE trees for a specific fencer. Going though 40 pools and a dozen pages of DE trees to see who someone fenced before getting to the top 8 is a pain in the rear with usfenincg.org, but it's just a click away with FRED. Granted, after a few years, I'm sure usfencing can be up to par with's FRED's current status, but just imagine what FRED/Fencing time will be able to do by then!

[Frank Pratt]

I think this is a great first step.

What I would love to see in terms of integration would be a way to link FRED ids to F.net logins. This would allow F.net to have links to a person's results in the FRED database, so we could see how well all the forum members do.

Obviously, for the few who want to protect their identity, we could have this be done on a volunteering basis, i.e. some kind of checkbox in the Fnet or FRED profile that allows one to publish their information, and specify their FRED or F.net login.

What do you think?

I really like this idea too!!

[Craig]

What I would love to see in terms of integration would be a way to link FRED ids to F.net logins. This would allow F.net to have links to a person's results in the FRED database, so we could see how well all the forum members do.

This is a great idea and I've actually tinkered with the idea a bit.

There are already extra fields that I can put into the user profile and one of those could be FRED ID. Then, with some help from Peet, we could rebuild the "User Profile" to include things like last 10 results, etc. which could be made public and/or private.

I haven't approached Peet with this idea yet b/c we were working through the first step with the posting of new threads (plus, I haven't specified what exactly I want in terms of info passed back and into the pages.)

Good idea - we should expand on this and I should create some mock ups to make sure I'm thinking along the same lines.

Craig