# idea: "Nth person to sub-11" for official results



## qqwref (Dec 7, 2009)

Kamil (one of my friends, who is very good at minesweeper) suggested to me that the cubing community implement something which would keep track of who breaks the sub-11 (or sub-10 or whatever) barrier. It would have to be a difficult barrier to break, so the idea is that if you get under a certain time, even if you do not set a national record, it is still impressive enough that it should be featured on the news page. The minesweeper community does this for expert level times - if you break the 50 second barrier the main page will say your name and result. For instance in cubing it might say "Piti Pichedpan is the 7th person to get a sub-11 average, with a result of 10.42 seconds".

So what do you think, is this a good idea or not? It is important that people who are very fast get noticed even if they do not break the national record or win the competition, so it would be cool to list people who get very fast times. It would not have to be 3x3, we could do it for other events too - sub50 4x4, sub-1:30 5x5, etc.


----------



## joey (Dec 7, 2009)

Where would these be displayed?
Just on the WCA frontpage?


----------



## Escher (Dec 7, 2009)

I like this quite a lot, I'm sure it will be especially appreciated in places like Poland, the Netherlands and the US where the NRs for each puzzle are extremely fast.

I don't see how it could hurt to implement it, and it seems quite a 'friendly' feature.


----------



## AndyRoo789 (Dec 7, 2009)

Good idea.
This will probably motivate people to want to be faster.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 7, 2009)

joey said:


> Where would these be displayed?
> Just on the WCA frontpage?



Yep, and the speedcubing.com news section. The idea is for it to be shown along with other news such as continental/world records and top 3 3x3 finalists.


----------



## joey (Dec 7, 2009)

qqwref said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > Where would these be displayed?
> ...



Yeah, that sounds good, I'd like to see that. (and not too hard to do, I suppose)



Escher said:


> I like this quite a lot, I'm sure it will be especially appreciated in places like Poland, the Netherlands and the US where the NRs for each puzzle are extremely fast.
> 
> I don't see how it could hurt to implement it, and it seems quite a 'friendly' feature.


+UK, amirite?


----------



## Escher (Dec 7, 2009)

escher said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how it could hurt to implement it, and it seems quite a 'friendly' feature.
> ...



Well yeah I was gonna say that, but we suck at OH, Megaminx and Feet


----------



## CharlieCooper (Dec 7, 2009)

Escher said:


> escher said:
> 
> 
> > joey said:
> ...



That's because we never do feet because everyone always says EWWW. Joey would have got the NR if he hadn't backed out of going on the stage at EC. It was grim, I don't blame him, but still


----------



## joey (Dec 7, 2009)

Huh? I went on stage at EC! I just DNF'd!


----------



## Zava (Dec 7, 2009)

Escher said:


> I like this quite a lot, I'm sure it will be especially appreciated in places like *Hungary*, Poland, the Netherlands and the US where the NRs for each puzzle are extremely fast.
> 
> I don't see how it could hurt to implement it, and it seems quite a 'friendly' feature.



don't forget the country with the world's second and fourth best allrounder


----------



## Escher (Dec 7, 2009)

Zava said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > I like this quite a lot, I'm sure it will be especially appreciated in places like *Hungary*, Poland, the Netherlands and the US where the NRs for each puzzle are extremely fast.
> ...



I'll be honest, I just looked at the top 10 for 3x3 average


----------



## Jake Gouldon (Dec 7, 2009)

So would this be for every puzzle, not just 3x3?


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Dec 7, 2009)

Zava said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > I like this quite a lot, I'm sure it will be especially appreciated in places like *Hungary*, Poland, the Netherlands and the US where the NRs for each puzzle are extremely fast.
> ...



Time for Dan and I to turn it up a notch. >_>


----------



## Novriil (Dec 7, 2009)

Jake Gouldon said:


> So would this be for every puzzle, not just 3x3?



Sorry but: WOWW! I got a sub-11 average at 2x2 -.- That isn't the same.. I think it should be only on 3x3.. on 2x2 it's.. pointless.


----------



## Escher (Dec 7, 2009)

Novriil said:


> Jake Gouldon said:
> 
> 
> > So would this be for every puzzle, not just 3x3?
> ...



One of the very, very few times I will ever use this emoticon, but you deserve it.

:fp

EDIT:
on-topic, I'd say sub 4 or sub 3.5 average would be fine for 2x2. The thing is, since times change so quickly, maybe it should just be "so-and-so entered the top 10 with a x single/average in y event!"


----------



## Novriil (Dec 7, 2009)

Escher said:


> Novriil said:
> 
> 
> > Jake Gouldon said:
> ...



why fp? you said excactly the same thing as I but with others words.. my point was that on 2x2 sub-11 would be pointless.. sub-4 would be okay.


----------



## Escher (Dec 7, 2009)

Novriil said:


> why fp? you said excactly the same thing as I but with others words.. my point was that on 2x2 sub-11 would be pointless.. sub-4 would be okay.



You still deserve an fp.


----------



## Micael (Dec 7, 2009)

I like it a lot.

I am biased, but I would like it to be for every official events (otherwise I'll never see my name there). I think I can talk about multi BLD, for which I would suggest 15/15 (sub-60min) as the barrier.


----------



## joey (Dec 7, 2009)

qqwref said:


> It would not have to be 3x3, we could do it for other events too - sub50 4x4, sub-1:30 5x5, etc.


Did you actually read qq's first post?


----------



## Omniscient (Dec 7, 2009)

qqwref said:


> So what do you think, is this a good idea or not? It is important that people who are very fast get noticed even if they do not break the national record or win the competition, so it would be cool to list people who get very fast times. It would not have to be 3x3, we could do it for other events too - sub50 4x4, sub-1:30 5x5, etc.



great idea!!!


----------



## Yes We Can! (Dec 7, 2009)

For me, it sounds like a great idea!


----------



## Toad (Dec 7, 2009)

I think this is a very good idea 

Also I like Rowan's suggestion for "xxx entered top 10 with a yy.yy single and zz.zz average" but maybe go for top 20 to publicise the less well known but still rather fast people...?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 7, 2009)

11 seconds is fairly arbitary and this threshold will change, likely soon.

How do you suggest this change is handled?


----------



## joey (Dec 7, 2009)

Just change the threshold.


----------



## Toad (Dec 7, 2009)

joey said:


> Just change the threshold.



Genius.


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 7, 2009)

Zava said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > I like this quite a lot, I'm sure it will be especially appreciated in places like *Hungary*, Poland, the Netherlands and the US where the NRs for each puzzle are extremely fast.
> ...



uh... who might this second be? I would say with almost no doubt that Erik and I are the top two all-arounders.

--edit-- 
looked at the stats page. I wouldn't say milan is better than me all around due to a few events that he has much better rankings in. I am faster in 9 events where he is only faster in 4 (magic, MM, OH, and 2x2) by significant margins. I also beat him in the single category, even if my FT ranking didn't exist just as his does with a ranking for 2x2 single that should mean absolutely nothing.


----------



## Carrot (Dec 7, 2009)

This is a great idea  I like it as long as there will also be a notification when you do good in the -minx evnets ;P


----------



## amostay2004 (Dec 7, 2009)

I like the idea too. There're still very few sub-11ers around that people who sub-11 average instantly get forum recognition, but this will probably change by next year. So it's nice to get this idea implemented by next year or so


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 7, 2009)

joey said:


> Just change the threshold.



That'll never work.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 7, 2009)

Kirjava said:


> 11 seconds is fairly arbitary and this threshold will change, likely soon.
> 
> How do you suggest this change is handled?



Changing the threshold works perfectly. You don't even have to have a single threshold - the minesweeper news keeps track of who breaks 50 seconds as well as who breaks 40 seconds. You can easily stop using a less difficult ranking when it is no longer impressive (I think minesweeper used to have a list of people who broke 60 seconds but there are too many now) and start using a more difficult one when it is first broken. This method wouldn't have to change much over the years (there IS a limit to 3x3 speed), and even if a few years later someone says "hey, sub-11 is not impressive anymore" you can still be happy to be the 8th person or whatever to do it.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 7, 2009)

You could just post any averages that are in the top 10 for that specific event. (or top 15, or whatever)


----------



## Cyrus C. (Dec 7, 2009)

Kirjava said:


> 11 seconds is fairly arbitary and this threshold will change, likely soon.
> 
> How do you suggest this change is handled?



Once an x number of people get past that threshold, a new one is open & the old one gets closed (but not deleted).


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 7, 2009)

I think that top n in an event sounds better than sub x.
Like a news feed would say "Stachu Korick just improved himself to place 3 in Sq-1 with a time of xx.yy" or something like that.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 8, 2009)

http://www.speedcubing.com/news_archive_2003.html said:


> Shotaro Makisumi broke his Rubik's 3x3x3 cube average record to achieve 6th place in the Unofficial Speedcubing Top Ten, with a new average record of 16.1 seconds.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 10, 2009)

Odder said:


> This is a great idea  I like it as long as there will also be a notification when you do good in the -minx evnets ;P



Pyraminx would be sub 6.5? Hard to tell. There's you getting sub 3 averages at home, Oka getting sub 5 at comp, but there is no where near as much competition for pyra, as there is for other events. There is 3 people getting 5 and under (5.04 counts as 5), but then 30 odd people later it's only just sub 8. Would mega be sub 1:10? or 1:05?

It would be hard to decide what the barriers are, as you can't create a barrier people have already passed.


----------



## Anthony (Dec 10, 2009)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> It would be hard to decide what the barriers are, as you can't create a barrier people have already passed.



Why not? I see no problem in having a notification whenever a new person reaches a sub 11 3x3 average, even though several people have already done so.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 10, 2009)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> It would be hard to decide what the barriers are, as you can't create a barrier people have already passed.



Creating a barrier people have already passed is the whole point. It's not "aww, 10 people have done this already" but rather "wow, I am only the 10th person to do this".


----------



## Sin-H (Dec 10, 2009)

I totally like this idea!


----------



## BeautifullyDecayed. (Dec 10, 2009)

This might be a stupid question but how do people submit their times?
Is it from weekly comp?
Or is it official WCA records?


----------



## Sin-H (Dec 10, 2009)

BeautifullyDecayed. said:


> This might be a stupid question but how do people submit their times?
> Is it from weekly comp?
> Or is it official WCA records?


we are talking about the official wca rankings =)


----------



## Carrot (Dec 10, 2009)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> Odder said:
> 
> 
> > This is a great idea  I like it as long as there will also be a notification when you do good in the -minx evnets ;P
> ...



5.5 should be okay for Pyraminx  I won't break that barrier before I get a pyraminx that works properly... my last one broke after 2 days  (ohh wait, I borrowed it from Mads Mohr :fp )


----------



## qqwref (Dec 10, 2009)

5.5 is not a round number; how about just 5 seconds? That's a nice round number, and it's definitely beatable. Maybe only 2 people have done it so far, but I'm sure there will be more.


----------

