.com Forum · Alpha Dog Forum

Rachel...picked by the same user yet the price of her has not gone up. Anyone else notice this?

I'm not getting what you mean ... Are you talking about sponsoring a show and picking a judge?

Rachel Barnett, overused and yet her cost is only 500$

you don't see anything wrong with that?

-----
Last edited by Studio Dogs on 10/23/2014 12:45:32 AM

Honestly, I'm getting a little tired of the same owner handler judges being used every night. I actually like handler judges, since it means that you have to strategize your entries a little better!

Em

Whoa, I wasn't understanding what you were asking. I don't sponsor shows, so I don't look at those things. Yes, it seems like she should cost more.

Have you contacted Jeff to point it out to him?

I agree with Amoroso.... Its getting a little tiring of the owner handler judges being everyday... It then makes only the same dogs win everyday... Dont get me wrong, Ive had my shares of my dog winning groups or BOBs everyday from these judges, but it doesnt always give other nice quality dogs opportunities.

I agree. I wish there was a nicer mix of owner handlered and handler handled preferring judges. Or even just a better mix of judges. I do think part of the problem is that it's the same few people who sponsor shows all the time and they prefer to pick owner handled judges. But it would be nice to get dogs shown under a wider variety of judges

I did a poll

www.showdog.com/forum/read.aspx?id=384234

Please vote yes

-----
Last edited by Studio Dogs on 10/23/2014 12:53:48 PM

I too would like to see a greater variety of judges. I looked at the poll that was posted and I’m slightly inclined to voting ‘Yes’ but I don’t want the situation where one person can go in early and nail down the top handlers, not necessarily with the intent to lock every one else out but just because they were there first. What time zone you live in can be a factor. This has caused a lot of negative feelings.

There are a couple of basic things that I also think should be clarified. I think I know what is meant but I’m not positive and that makes me think that I am possibly not the only one.

Not political at all:
To me this means that the judges list is really irrelevant, however I'm not sure that's the way it works. Not political at all should mean that the best handler is the most skilled so Roxanne, Ellen, Julie, and a few others should all be fairly equal whether they appear on the judges list or not. This would make a "NPAA" judge almost as valuable as an "owner" judge but would still require a handler and a knowledge/gut feeling about who is actually better among these top handlers.

Not very political:
To me, this phase is ambiguous and dependant on which words are emphasized and/or the context.
Example:
"John is very tall. (He's 6'4".)
"Dave" is not very tall. (He's 5'6".)
"Joe is not VERY tall. (He's 6’, as compared to John. Joe is just tall.)

"Not very" can be interpreted in two different ways. So is a "not very" judge just a little bit less political than a "very political" judge or is a "not very" judge just a little bit more political than a "not political at all" judge?

I suggest "not very" be replaced by either “fairly or quite political” or “slightly or a bit political” depending on the intent.

*Very Political (No change)
*Not very political ??? (Change to “Fairly/quite political”)
*Not overt (No change)
*Not very political ??? (Change to “Slightly/a bit political”)
*Not political at all (no change)

Jeff, please clarify these! I'm confused.

Handler limits:
The other thought that I’ve had for a while has to do with the one dog, one bitch to a handler thing. I’d suggest perhaps one class dog, one class bitch, and one specials any sex.

The reasoning – Realistically, one handler would not be able to handle 2 specials in any situation – they go in male and female together. It is conceivable to handle one male and one female class dog. The conflict only arises if both dogs get winners and that is where handlers need backups. This proposal would eliminate the absolute conflict of a handler with two specials just because they are different sexes and at the same time allow each handler to take three dogs. I recognize that a conflict will arise if a class dog finishes and gets bumped up to Specials if that handler already has a Specials. That would have to be worked out. And yes, at some point we are always going to see Ellen handling all of the group winners for BIS – it’s a concession made against reality. Personally I’d like to see all judges “not political at all” by my definition above, but probably not gonna happen.



-----
Last edited by gaylanstudio on 10/24/2014 8:55:34 PM

^^ no wonder you are confused. LOL

handler rankings can be influenced (by usage). So everything you just said is more or less moot.
It just takes a bit longer to make one better then another.

and as the judges are retiring it will be more of an easier change up IF the shows are bought far enough in advance. I understand they are more expensive, but if people can afford to buy judges and so many shows, what difference does it make? drop the cost of the shows? or another idea??

doesn't matter to me, I just want the random judges put back.

*Very Political
*Not overt
*Not very political
*Not political at all


That is the correct ordering. Why are you complaining that its not realistic that both a male and female special can be handled by the same handler but are ok with every breed winner and every group winner being handled by the same 1 or 2 handlers?

grif,

-----
Last edited by griffin on 10/24/2014 3:31:40 AM

quote

---

posted by Studio Dogs

Handler rankings can be influenced (by usage). So everything you just said is more or less moot.
It just takes a bit longer to make one better then another.

---

Handler rankings are influenced by usage but handler rankings are not the same as handler quality. Handler quality is a fixed constant selected at random when the handler was created. Handler rankings can be used to guesstimate the true quality of the handler but because of differing rates of usage it will never be a perfect reflection of the true quality of the handler.

grif,

And yet it has nothing todo with this post.

I'm not trying to sove how judges and handlers are used during play. My thoughts are you snooze you loose, be logged in more- I'm sure Jeff likes it when we are more active on the site.

The point is the blatant over use of the same judges, time and time again. I'm sure he can program one random judge to have handlers and another judge handler free, per night. Usually there is more then one show a night still can be random as to which buyer gets which judge first.

I really hate how the same judge is used almost daily. I don't enter some of my dogs who I would love to finish, or GCH out just because I don't like the judge so I miss a lot of shows. And of course the breeds I am in don't have enough dogs to have two shows with majors. I don't think judge should be a choice, it should just be randomized. Or if you sponsor a show one time you can choose owner handler judge or a judge that likes handlers then the next show you sponsor you have to choose the opposite, maybe this would help even it out a bit?

Can two people sponsoring shows pick the same judge for the same day? Maybe only allow a judge to be chosen once every 3-4 days? I don't know just tossing out ideas

Yes, I admit that my reply seems somewhat off-topic, however I was taking into consideration the poll to return to random judges that was also posted. I do not think they can be separated and I will not vote “yes” until other issues are addressed – ie a way for everyone to have a fair shot at a good handler. Perhaps more high caliber handlers? Perhaps more “not political at all” judges (see comments in earlier post).

While I would like to see different judges and I would even want to see more handler judges, however under HELP:

“About 15% of the judges will actually show a bias toward owner handled dogs vs dogs with handlers.

So at approximately 2 shows per day and 60 shows per month you should expect to see 9 owner-handler judges. I believe most folks like these owner-handlers and participation will potentially drop if the owner-judge ratio is cut back too much.

“Snooze you loose” is hardly fair. Not everyone has the opportunity to get on every day and snag the best handlers as the shows come up. I don’t think Jeff really cares that everyone signs on every day. His concern is more likely that everyone who is paying for an account (or several) feels that they are getting good value for their money - that is the bottom line!

Griff,
I was not complaining that it is unrealistic for one handler to handle two specials at the same time, merely using it as an additional justification to the proposed change. If you read my comment again you will note that I have conceded that we can not eliminate the “Ellen” clones and that was not my complaint. Perhaps I worded that badly. The whole section in my post is aimed at adding one more dog to what a handler can handle.

It was just a small change aimed at alleviating the gripping at “handler-hogging” which crops up in various breeds from time to time. Will this solve that issue – no, of course not, but realism was not the primary intent. Should realism be a goal? Yes, I think so. Should it be the primary goal at the expense of a workable game – no.

As to the “not very political” – there is an ambiguity. I have a fairly good command of the English language. If I identify an ambiguity, I’m fairly confident that somewhere along the line someone else will misinterpret this. It’s just another really small change – a couple of words – to remove a potential mistake for someone to make.

I am really not trying to come up with a solution to the issues here. They are just thoughts – a contribution to the discussion, trying to make the random judges more acceptable to more people. Just “tossing out ideas” too.

I'm just sick of seeing Rachel over and over and over and you get the point. .-.

ooooh..her price went up .78 cents!! how is that even not a glitch?

I'm recently returned after a long break, and play a relatively popular breed and compared to the old days, there really is no handler hogging.

When I returned to the game I expected to have to enter like I used to:
- at least one month in advance
- picking the right judges (using a calculator) and making sure I had exactly the right handlers

So far, I find that I can't enter more than a few days in advance because there just aren't shows on the schedule more than a few out. I also find that flying blind (without the need for the judge evaluator I now have) I've finished 2 dogs, and have another 3 almost finished. I also find that in the breed where there are lots of breeders I'm able to get a handler if I need to and I'm able to get points.

I would like to see other judges used more regularly. I have 2 really good goldens coming up who have a 10 in gait. I want to show them under high 'gait' judges ... only those judges aren't getting any shows. So the one I'm currently showing is burning me money every night to DNP or 4th in class ... but at least I'm helping others to get majors.

Jessica

ETA

Can we charge more for handler free shows? The option is/ was there, charge a 500$ fee, or as per user that uses it, have the price go up. obviously players are willing to do what ever to influence the game. May was well give a more honest way....




-----
Last edited by Studio Dogs on 10/25/2014 10:35:31 AM

'No Handler' shows are available for breed specialties. Although it was discussed, I don't believe they were ever made available for all breeds. Anybody remember differently?

quote

---

posted by gaylanstudio
'No Handler' shows are available for breed specialties. Although it was discussed, I don't believe they were ever made available for all breeds. Anybody remember differently?

---

They used to be, a long long long time ago, but were removed from the game. At least that is if memory serves