Feature request: scorecard checking with multiple scorekeepers

[timreyn]

For major competitions with multiple scorekeepers, it would be great if checking mode sorted by the person who entered the result. So if they entered results in this order
Person A enters scorecard 1
Person B enters scorecard 2
Person A enters scorecard 3
Person A enters scorecard 4
Person B enters scorecard 5

then scorecard checking mode would show them in order 1, 3, 4, 2, 5

The motivation is that it would be easier to keep the scorecards in separate piles per person who entered them, rather than try to keep them sorted in the order they were entered.

For CubingUSA Nationals 2023, we're planning to have 10 scorekeepers, and this would make scorecard checking much easier.

[TCiras]

After doing data at both CubingUSA Nationals 2023 and Cubing USA New England Championship 2023, having the checking data in separate lists for different scorekeepers would save time double checking data when getting ready for the nest round of an event to happen. Sifting through and checking based on ID number rather than looking through the stack in the order it is in takes far more time and slows down the time frame of being ready for that next round.

This would also make it easier when working with multiple stages, as we could have one scorekeeper per stage which would allow faster location of missing or mistaken data when that issue arises.

[kydadinoWCA]

I'm bumping this thread.

Expanding onto this idea, with the addition of 'Batch Mode' a more useful implementation would be to have them ordered by the Batch submission time, followed by the scorecard's entered time. This would allow for multiple scoretakers entering simultaneously, then:

Scenario 1: The scoretakers can submit their batch one-by-one and move the scorecards into a central pile. They can then pass this off to be stored and/or double checked.

Scenario 2: The scoretakers can submit their batch, and press 'Double Check' right away. This will make the double checking page be at the start of their batch, where they can check until their batch is finished, at which point they are done.

Scenario 3: The scoretakers can submit their batch, and put their batch to the side. This allows them to be passed off to various double checkers, and all they have to do is skip people until they find the start of their batch, then double check as usual. This is similar in practise to Scenario 1.

I'm not sure how easy/difficult this would be to implement, but it would allow for much more efficient double checking at large competitions, including major championships.

[kr-matthews]

What's wrong with keeping scorecards in separate piles per person who entered them, right now? For checking, you can just skip through the entries you don't have, and check all the cards in a single pile at a time.

Maybe it's slightly annoying to have to skip a bunch of entries, but it doesn't seem like a big deal? The only potential issue I see is knowing that everything was checked. This could be done by counting the scorecards, or allowing entries in WCA Live to be marked as "checked" - making them disappear from the double-check view and making there be less to skip through for later piles as a nice side effect. That would also make it easy and convenient to know which rounds have been checked - keeping track manually can get messy at times.

[jonatanklosko]

Expanding onto this idea, with the addition of 'Batch Mode' a more useful implementation would be to have them ordered by the Batch submission time, followed by the scorecard's entered time.

We are not tracking batch submission separately and I'm not convinced we should. Batch mode was added specifically for cases where result submission is slow (either slow internet connection or heavy traffic to the website). In such case the scoretakers can enter results in batches of N (for arbitrary N), or enter as the scorecards are being delivered, submit, wait for more scorecards, enter, submit. The important point is, we don't want to make it such that each scoretaker delays submission in order to submit their scorecards as a single batch.

Grouping by scoretaker would make sense. We could sort by (scoretaker, entry time), in which case we should probably also show the scoretaker to make it clear. But I think a better approach could be having a select where you pick the scoretaker and it shows the results they entered (and the select defaults to "All").

[kydadinoWCA]

Thanks for your response,

Grouping by scoretaker would also be a very good implementation, especially if you were able to pick the scoretaker and only have their scorecards show. That would be amazing.

The batch mode suggestion was merely another example of how this could be potentially implemented, and you made some good points as to why my idea may have been flawed (such as scoretakers purposefully delaying submission so they are all in a single batch).

Thanks for reading my suggestion and considering the ideas that have been raised :)