We think only a record holder can know what you go through to set a record, so we only let people that
have already set world records downvote other people's records.
What can I do?
Go set a record! If you can think of it, you can set a new world record for it.
I do agree with Mick. If I'm submitting a record with a count of 1,000+ then I should count and verify it myself and/or with my witness if there was one. This in itself should be credible enough based on a quick check of length of time - anyone who looks at the record can choose to count and reverify, particularly if you were a previous holder of the record.
Other record systems usually counts bounces/catches etc, but after one minute it is only timed. I prefer to count myself because I've always been that way, this is where it should become a wiki system and more trust given to "the people". Although this is higher risk, there are more people to verify. If a record has been submitted that looks unrealistic it can be reported. As a quick example, my record of 1100 is almost the same length as Micks 700 so time doesn't do it for me. But because I want to hold my title in this category, I'm happy to spend 5-10 minutes counting another submission to see if it is in fact better than my previous attempts. And if it's incorrect it can simply be noted and corrected.
As a current record holder, I wouldn't really mind counting/approving records that break my own. However, I also think I agree with the spirit of the URDB-- pushing the bounds of what people can do and try, rather than just striving to hold onto records. What happens if you have a record holder who is more possessive and protective of his/her records? Obviously, as things move forward for URDB, you'll have to deal with more and more records that include long videos and tedious verification. It would be a shame to see credentialed witnesses required, because I think that reduces the accessibility that makes URDB so appealing to so many. But I also recognize the limitations of a lack of manpower to handle the volume of record submissions.
Peter, you raise an issue we've been discussing at URDB HQ: how do we scale the adjudication in categories like this? Do we insist on credentialed witnesses? Outsource it to a service like Mechanical Turk? Require the current record holder to count/approve it? Would love to hear ideas.
Just submitting the new record... it really could go on for ever. I hate the thought of making these poor guys have to count 1,000+ bounces all the time... The new record is now.... 1,130 bounces. I've added another 393 on your new one, but it was far from easy! Not sure how much more I've got in me...
Just quickly tried it, got 100 bounces in 45 seconds, if you could keep that rate up you'd get 500 in less than 4 minutes but that would be tough to keep up and tough to judge.
Nice job Mick, I approved it myself, watched and recounted and 737 is the new record. You certainly make it difficult to keep up so it's back to me again I think on this one... I noticed you got to 500 in about 5:40 - I'm thinking we should mix it up a little and will try and get 500 in a much quicker time, maybe 4:30 or at least under 5:00 for now... And I reckon 1,000 is within reach...
Good job Mick, but sorry I beat you again. I like this one, you get into a bit of a rhythm and you could go on forever... The record now stands at 490... I noticed you're much better reserved then me - I run all over the place, you barely move your feet!
I am officially done with this record. You & Mick can battle it out. I'm just a spectator now. I tried this record today & got 330. My right hand is really weak with a paddle so it's throws off my control & balance.
All Comments for this Record Category
Brian Pankey
I'm glad Peter corrected this!
Rob Birdsong
Hey guys, sorry for the mix up. Peter Craig is the current world record holder in this category. Great to see the competition taking off here.
Peter Craig
Rehashing previous comments, I don't understand this record status, my 1,130 should be current, Brian's 1,009 should be "failed".
Gold Member
Peter Craig should still hold this record. He did 1130
Gold Member
If Brian did 1009
Gold Member
If Brian did 1009
Peter Craig
I do agree with Mick. If I'm submitting a record with a count of 1,000+ then I should count and verify it myself and/or with my witness if there was one. This in itself should be credible enough based on a quick check of length of time - anyone who looks at the record can choose to count and reverify, particularly if you were a previous holder of the record.
Other record systems usually counts bounces/catches etc, but after one minute it is only timed. I prefer to count myself because I've always been that way, this is where it should become a wiki system and more trust given to "the people". Although this is higher risk, there are more people to verify. If a record has been submitted that looks unrealistic it can be reported. As a quick example, my record of 1100 is almost the same length as Micks 700 so time doesn't do it for me. But because I want to hold my title in this category, I'm happy to spend 5-10 minutes counting another submission to see if it is in fact better than my previous attempts. And if it's incorrect it can simply be noted and corrected.
Mick Cullen
As a current record holder, I wouldn't really mind counting/approving records that break my own. However, I also think I agree with the spirit of the URDB-- pushing the bounds of what people can do and try, rather than just striving to hold onto records. What happens if you have a record holder who is more possessive and protective of his/her records? Obviously, as things move forward for URDB, you'll have to deal with more and more records that include long videos and tedious verification. It would be a shame to see credentialed witnesses required, because I think that reduces the accessibility that makes URDB so appealing to so many. But I also recognize the limitations of a lack of manpower to handle the volume of record submissions.
Dan Rollman
Peter, you raise an issue we've been discussing at URDB HQ: how do we scale the adjudication in categories like this? Do we insist on credentialed witnesses? Outsource it to a service like Mechanical Turk? Require the current record holder to count/approve it? Would love to hear ideas.
Peter Craig
Just submitting the new record... it really could go on for ever. I hate the thought of making these poor guys have to count 1,000+ bounces all the time... The new record is now.... 1,130 bounces. I've added another 393 on your new one, but it was far from easy! Not sure how much more I've got in me...
Peter Craig
Just quickly tried it, got 100 bounces in 45 seconds, if you could keep that rate up you'd get 500 in less than 4 minutes but that would be tough to keep up and tough to judge.
Peter Craig
Nice job Mick, I approved it myself, watched and recounted and 737 is the new record. You certainly make it difficult to keep up so it's back to me again I think on this one... I noticed you got to 500 in about 5:40 - I'm thinking we should mix it up a little and will try and get 500 in a much quicker time, maybe 4:30 or at least under 5:00 for now... And I reckon 1,000 is within reach...
Brian Pankey
All hail king Peter!
Peter Craig
Good job Mick, but sorry I beat you again. I like this one, you get into a bit of a rhythm and you could go on forever... The record now stands at 490... I noticed you're much better reserved then me - I run all over the place, you barely move your feet!
Mick Cullen
Good question! I'll give this a shot sometime in the next couple of days.
Peter Craig
Now does Rob like this because it's one less possible submission to count so many bounces and verify so many exchanges? :) Brian, so close...
Brian Pankey
I am officially done with this record. You & Mick can battle it out. I'm just a spectator now. I tried this record today & got 330. My right hand is really weak with a paddle so it's throws off my control & balance.
Mick Cullen
Nice job, Peter!
his hands were out of shot one point, no dice