Talk:2013-14 HSQBRank

The table

Here's the table in blank slate format --Zachary Yan (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2013 (PST)

	Preseason ranking	Ranking #1	Ranking #2	Ranking #3	Ranking #4	Ranking #5	Ranking #6	Ranking #7	Ranking #8
1.																					1.
2.																					2.
3.																				3.
4.																					4.
5.																					5.
6.																					6.
7.																					7.
8.																					8.
9.											9.
10.												10.
		Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None	Dropped: None

To be quite honest, this entire table is just one huge mess. Is it really necessary to track the top 10 for each release? I'm going to just post the current top 10 (or 25) while providing links to previous rankings for the year. (At least for now, perhaps I or someone else will come up with a more efficient solution later.) Alex Liu (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2013 (PST)

What in the world was the bottom row supposed to be, anyway? Alex Liu (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2013 (PST)

Since people pay attention to the rankings I figured they'd also be interested ranking changes throughout the year. Granted, some of the more dramatic changes in ranking can be attributed to a top player or team playing a tournament for the first time than actual quizbowl gameplay related matters. I agree it does seem somewhat cluttered but reducing the font size has helped. The bottom row is supposed to track teams entering and exiting the top 25 and it contains a bunch of wikitex I didn't bother to delete. For the record the table was [| taken from wikipedia] once again.--Zachary Yan (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2013 (PST)

Also if anyone thinks 25 teams is visual overkill feel free to cut it down in size.--Zachary Yan (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2013 (PST)

There are simply too many updates to keep track of, and not all of the updates are created equal (some are major updates made after a month of collecting stats, while others are made a few days or a week later to account for tournaments that released stats late or for another tournament that happened that week). Reducing the font size hasn't changed the fact that the table is monstrously wide. I think it would be better to have something like Wikipedia has for the ATP rankings, where just one list is shown while other columns track player movement in the standings. It would be easier to read, take up less space, and provide only the necessary info. Alex Liu (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2013 (PST)

Fair enough, however I still think people would be interested in top 25 especially if it uses the simpler table design. --Zachary Yan (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2013 (PST)

I have no issues with how many teams are listed. Alex Liu (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2013 (PST)

A couple of assorted notes: 1) haha what 2) I don't know if copying my rankings verbatim from the most recent edition is the most efficient use of such a page, but isn't an inherently bad idea; perhaps something tracking the various peaks for all teams? 3) I would favor the up image for use with teams moving into the top 25 since, you know, they're moving up into it.--Fred Morlan (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2013 (PST)

I hope you're all ready for some more work!--Fred Morlan (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2013 (PST)