Superman2006

Great start, @genrlzod!

Awesome. Thanks, Mike!

I only started publishing Rookie of the Year winners after Contest #8, if I recall correctly. Here are the Rookie of the Year winners for all contests to date: Honorable mention to others that did well in their first outing, especially those in the first contest (including @Motor City Rob who had a 14) as that was the toughest contest to win RoY, as it included the legendary @Squirrel Guy (who would be ranked first overall if he had enough qualifying rounds and maintained his current average over 3 rounds), and many other top ranked graders, including three that are currently in the top ten cumulative rankings (@jbpez, @Point Five and @zzutak).

You'd have a 22.5 average if not for your worst two rounds of 35 (rounds 2 and 7). Your best score was a 2 (in contest #1 and again in contest #8); your worst was a 15 in contest #7. Your 2nd worse was a 13 in in contest #4; you had just 11 total points across the other 3 rounds in that contest!

This is so cool. Thanks Supes! I for one would love you to continue to do this and I think that we - those who participate in the grading contest - should start a fund for you as a way of saying thanks. Enough for you to go buy something nice for yourself in the Marketplace here Thanks, Kramerica! I had recalled at least one negative comment in the past from someone that didn't care for some of my cumulative rankings (and sometimes for every one complaint there are more that feel the same way), but based on the feedback in this thread, I plan to continue updating the cumulative rankings going forward. It's worth the effort to me since it sounds like more people enjoy the rankings and other stats I provide than not. I really appreciate the gesture, but I would request that no fund be started on my behalf. Similar to the efforts from @CGC Mike, @Get Marwood & I and @zzutak, and everyone that comment in the grading threads (I'm usually more of a reader than a commenter lol), I'm just trying to chip in, in some way. Just consider this my little contribution to the boards!

I use Excel. I'm a big fan of Excel and I've been using it forever; well at least since I switched over to it from Lotus 123 back in the late 90's. It doesn't take that long to put together; I think it took about 2.5 to 3 hours to prepare from start to finish this past time, which I don't think is that bad (I have a lot of checks that I perform to ensure accuracy). It is a fairly automated process already; there are some minor things that could be done to speed it up (data wise, and preparation wise), but probably not enough time savings to make it worth the additional effort. Since it sounds like you and a number of folks would like me to continue publishing the cumulative rankings, I'll plan to keep doing so going forward. For anyone not interested in how the sausage is made, feel free to skip this post For AnthonyTheAbyss and any others that are interested in my process, the following covers most of my cumulative rankings update steps: (a) locate the prior rounds results threads (I'll probably do that right after each round going forward) (b) copy and paste the data into Excel, with one tab for each round, (c) then reformat all names to remove any trailing spaces, etc., identify new participants, check them against participants through the first 8 rounds, and make sure that there weren't any inadvertent name changes in the contest summaries (e.g. in the past, "TheGeneral" might have participated in past contests, but then one contest there might have been an entrant of "The General", which was really the same entrant, and so when that was brought to my attention, I tweaked the checks that I was performing for any new entrants to make sure the name didn't have a typo in it, and I fixed the typo in my spreadsheet. I can't remember for sure if it was TheGeneral or some other name with a space issue in the middle of the name, but you get the idea; there weren't any name issues like that this past contest and maybe not in other recent contests, but I still check for it) (d) for each round, given everyone's grades by book, I calculate my own scores for each participant and check the totals Mike comes up with (e) compile all results for the current contest into a single tab, with one row for each entrant, regardless of whether they completed 1 round or 4 rounds in the current contest (this and all other steps are fairly automated; since CGC Mike started posting results in a format that I can copy / paste into Excel there isn't any manual data entry; just the occasional manual data correction, but even that is rare in recent contests. Any manual inputs I performed to pull in some of the results from the early contests were double-checked for accuracy, plus like I mentioned earlier, I calculate everyone's scores in my spreadsheet, and so I then checked my totals against Mike's totals for everyone). (f) bring in results for all participants for the current round into an aggregate tab that includes results for all participants to date for every book / round / contest to date. This is the tab that I then use to apply filters / prepare rankings, etc.

I use Excel. I'm a big fan of Excel and I've been using it forever; well at least since I switched over to it from Lotus 123 back in the late 90's. It doesn't take that long to put together; I think it took about 2.5 to 3 hours to prepare from start to finish this past time, which I don't think is that bad (I have a lot of checks that I perform to ensure accuracy). It is a fairly automated process already; there are some minor things that could be done to speed it up (data wise, and preparation wise), but probably not enough time savings to make it worth the additional effort. Since it sounds like you and a number of folks would like me to continue publishing the cumulative rankings, I'll plan to keep doing so going forward.

Thanks, ChrispyC66, and congrats on making the honor roll. You have been on fire the past few contests with an average 22.7 over he past three contests!

@ADAMANTIUM You are one of just 10 participants with a perfect attendance record. Three of the participants with a perfect attendance record qualified for the 4th and final round of the first contest and hence they have a total 9 rounds played while the other seven have a total of 8.75 rounds played. @zzutak @Motor City Rob and @pastandpresentcomics proved that their top 10 finish in the first contest was no fluke as they currently sit very high up in the cumulative rankings as well (9th, 11th and 13th respectively). @Point Five has the best cumulative ranking of those with perfect attendance (7th overall).

I have not received an inquiry from you before, but here's some additional info since you asked: There have 424 different participants across the 9 contests to date (I didn't check to see if anyone changed there user name, but if any name changes are brought to my attention I can update my info accordinly) Out off the 424 participants to date, 86 participants have completed 4.25 or more contests (i.e. 4.25 x 4 = 17 rounds or more) Those 86 participants qualify for the top 50 rankings in my first post. You are currently in 71st place with an average score of 35.8. You have participated in all contests to date; 8.75 contests to be precise, since you didn't make it into the top 10 in the first contest through the first 3 rounds and therefore you didn't qualify for the 4th and final round of that contest. Your best score was 28 which you received in contests 4 and 6. Hope that helps If you'd like your scores for all rounds let me know here or via PM (I have the info readily available and it would just take me 2 seconds to pull up) If anyone else thinks they were excluded from the rankings in error, let me know in this thread or shoot me a PM.

Thanks, Mike!

Here are the average scores by contest, along with the number of participants that submitted grades for 1 or more rounds: The average grade has been in the 29 to 32 range for all but the first contest. For the first contest there were a lot more participants at the start (203 vs. a high of 134 for the other contests), and from what I recall CGC marketed the contest on social media, so a presumably a lot more non-regular boardies participated, which presumably is the main reason for the higher than usual average score in the first contest.

In case anyone was wondering what the rankings would look like if I didn't set a minimum number of contests requirement for the cumulative rankings in my first post above, here are all of the scores for candidates with an average score of 20 or less with no minimum number of contests requirement:

If I drop another five places like I did after the end of the last contest then maybe that's for the best. Seriously though, your analysis and hard work is much appreciated. I had been wondering where this cumulative performance ranking was. Thanks very much. Thanks, buddy! It takes a few hours to put it all together with a lot of data checks throughout to account for any data issues (there haven't been many in recent contests thanks to good work by CGC Mike and Get Marwood & I) and to perform other cross-checks, so it's not an incredible amount of work. Maybe I'll keep updating it in the future, if more people want it than not. Holding off on publishing it until the start of the next contest like I did this time does give me more freedom to update it at my convenience.

Hey guys / gals, I have been posting cumulative rankings dating back to the completion of the 6th grading contest. It felt a bit too much like work putting this together this time around, so this may or may not be my last cumulative rankings update. With that said... As usual, the cumulative CGC grading contest rankings ignore tie breaker rounds. Following are the "MVP", "Diamond Club", and "Honor Roll" award winners based on performance through the first 9 CGC grading contests (I set the qualifying requirement at just under 50% x total contests to date = 4.25 contests; 4.25 contests x 4 rounds per contest = 17 rounds to qualify); Thanks again for CGC Mike for providing the contest results for each round in an easy to copy / paste format.