Likes Likes:  10
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: New website and would love some feedback

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Exeter, UK
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like

    New website and would love some feedback

    Hi all, so I became a member of Weightlifting Forums around 5 years ago but have created a new account because I can't log into my old one.

    So, I recently redid my website and am looking for some feedback on it. It would be great to know what you think could be improved, what you think the site should include that it currently doesn't, and what is working for you.

    The idea for the website is to become the home of all things weightlifting. News, lifts, results, interviews, athlete profiles etc.

    weightliftinghouse.com

    When I originally made the site around two years ago I made a thread on here also and got some good feedback from you guys. A lot has changed since but hopefully I will get some more good feedback again!

    Thanks in advance,
    Seb
    Last edited by Seb WL House; 03-21-2019 at 07:39 AM. Reason: Forgot to hyperlink website

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    432
    Post Thanks / Like
    The gap to fill in the market place obviously is a more robust results section than the IWF, so that you have a merging of domestic competition results around the world with international results, to create a one stop shop for weightlifting fans.

    Objective editorials, social media updates of note, links to live competition streams..... you're most of the way there really. I'd leave out a forum, I think that does nothing for you and no doubt you've put some thought towards what sorts of advertising will be on the site.

    I'm not sure if having a section on educational courses offered around the world is necessary or not but obviously there is a significant thirst for growth in lifters and coaches. Whether WH would ever want to be a hub for people offering foreign training camp opportunities or coordinate competition tours for fans to major events would be dependent on how broad and thin you'd want to spread yourself - but its a jolly good next stage you've got there, and obviously the podcast is the lynch pin.

  3. Likes Blairbob liked this post
  4. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,448
    Post Thanks / Like
    IWRP did well with the results but in the last year or so has really tapered off.

    Your book was good, I probably could have added an interesting story to every single lifter in there that I have collected over the years, so I would have liked to hear some more fun 'gossip' stuff. But overall it was a nice collection for any fan.

    The new website looks great but is a little bit cluttered, you should organise the front page a little more, space things out, put the random articles on one side, the pro results somewhere else, and so on

  5. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,807
    Post Thanks / Like
    The most glaring error is the "Sinclair Book". That's not how Sinclair works, it's not a fixed value. It changes every quadrennial, you cannot "rank" results this way. Comparing a 1990 value against a 2010 value is not valid.

    For example a 420 at 94 total would be "better" than 380 at 77 in 2012. In 2000 the opposite is true.

    Sinclair was dropped because it goes against the WL rules itself, the goal was never to maximize Sinclair values, i.e. deliberately weighing in at a lower number than needed for a class. It is inherently flawed due to the SHW categories where this is the most obvious.

    This book is misinformation.
    Last edited by erpel; 03-21-2019 at 05:01 PM.

  6. Likes Hawkpeter liked this post
  7. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    31
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by erpel View Post
    The most glaring error is the "Sinclair Book". That's not how Sinclair works, it's not a fixed value. It changes every quadrennial, you cannot "rank" results this way. Comparing a 1990 value against a 2010 value is not valid.

    For example a 420 at 94 total would be "better" than 380 at 77 in 2012. In 2000 the opposite is true.

    Sinclair was dropped because it goes against the WL rules itself, the goal was never to maximize Sinclair values, i.e. deliberately weighing in at a lower number than needed for a class. It is inherently flawed due to the SHW categories where this is the most obvious.

    This book is misinformation.
    As Seb noted in the introduction to the book, a single A constant was used to calculate coefficients based on the best totals of the lifters, in order that they could be relatively fairly compared across years within the Sinclair era. In other words, they were all ranked based on what they would score if they made their best totals right at the end of the Sinclair era. We did the maths rather than just taking the Sinclair scores they were given at the time.

    Sinclair was indeed superceded by Robi (not dropped entirely– the IWF still feature it on their site), in part because of the rule change that eliminated bodyweight in deciding results within categories, but that change only happened in 2016, right at the end of the era covered by the book. Up until then, being lighter was an advantage in competition.

    I'm not sure what other method could be used to compare performances of lifters across the years. Robi would be highly unfair to anyone in a weight category with an outlier world record. Percentage of bodyweight or straight total would clearly favour particular ends of the bodyweight spectrum. Medals won would favour lifters who didn't have strong competition.

    How would you approach fairly comparing athletes for a book like this?

  8. Likes Hawkpeter liked this post
  9. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    31
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CNL View Post
    IWRP did well with the results but in the last year or so has really tapered off.
    We spent a long time on IWRP while working on the book so I have a huge appreciation for it, combined with frustration that it does not have a more flexible, modern interface to the data. I tried to contact the owner but got no reply so I'm not sure what the status of it is in terms of ongoing development.

    We have some plans around results and weightlifting data in general that we are quite excited about.

  10. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,807
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_weightliftinghouse View Post
    As Seb noted in the introduction to the book, a single A constant was used to calculate coefficients based on the best totals of the lifters, in order that they could be relatively fairly compared across years within the Sinclair era. In other words, they were all ranked based on what they would score if they made their best totals right at the end of the Sinclair era. We did the maths rather than just taking the Sinclair scores they were given at the time.
    So in other words you made something up. The "A" constant. You had to. Because there is no objective measure to compare totals across classes. It's not possible by design. WL is not about body weight, but weight classes. The is the fundamental issue you can't overcome.

    A 400 total in 1990 is the same as a 400 total in 2018 (ignoring testing here). Because the kg is a fixed value. No such thing exists in WL. A 400 sinclair in 1990 is not a 400 sinclair in 2010.

    Why would you rank your list on a self-created value "A" but not the coefficients of 1988 or 2019? How is that more objective if all of these values are arbitrary?

    If someone created a ranking with the coefficients of 1988 how would he be "wrong" compared to you?

    This isn't objective. At the end it's the opinion of two (?) people.

    BTW, you also compare non-tested totals against "testing standard of 2018" totals. This is incredibly disingenuous. Suleymanoglu for example stopped having the highest Sinclair as soon as testing became mandatory (1989). Why shouldn't that be taken into account?

    All of this is wholly unfair to the uninformed

    Just one example why I'd roll my eyes at the title alone:

    At the Sydney Olympics Hossein Rezazadeh won the Gold medal with a total of 472.5 at a body weight of 147.48. Yani Marchokov won nothing with a total of 460 at a body weight of 123.64.

    Rezazadeh's Sinclair is 477.19.
    Marchokov's Sinclair is 478.81.

    Please tell me who's the "greater" weightlifter?

    You cannot rank totals between classes objectively. Not by Sinclair or anything else.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan_weightliftinghouse View Post
    How would you approach fairly comparing athletes for a book like this?
    I wouldn't and I never have. Because after looking at the primary documents I understood that Sinclair was a plaything for idle times, not a reference.

    I also think people simply don't understand the body weight totals are the reference point for Sinclair, not vice versa. As they change, so does Sinclair, but not 1:1. Or in other words if WL wouldn't be based on categories Sinclair wouldn't exist in the first place.

  11. Likes Hawkpeter, Gary Echternacht liked this post
  12. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    31
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by erpel View Post
    So in other words you made something up. The "A" constant.

    ...

    Why would you rank your list on a self-created value "A" but not the coefficients of 1988 or 2019?
    We didn't 'make up' the A constant. We used the most recent value (the one for the current Olympic quad). Hence why I said that we scored lifters as if they made their best lifts at the end of the Sinclair era.

    In case you didn't realise, A is the term generally used for the constant that is updated from quad to quad. A is used in the formula to calculate the Sinclair coefficient for a particular bodyweight. The derived coefficient is then multiplied by the total achieved to get the Sinclair score. Coefficients are not directly updated every four years – they just change because the two A constants (one for men, one for women) are updated.

  13. Likes Hawkpeter liked this post
  14. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    31
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by erpel View Post
    If someone created a ranking with the coefficients of 1988 how would he be "wrong" compared to you?
    Not at all. If someone wants to put the work in to produce such a book (or one based on any other measure) I would be interested to read it and would appreciate the effort they made. I certainly wouldn't be referring to their efforts as "misinformation" or accusing them of being "incredibly disingenuous" just because I would have chosen a different metric.

    Seb chose a method for selecting the athletes and how they would be ranked in his book. It's not the only method available. Other methods have advantages and disadvantages but that's the one he chose and he explained why in the book. The method he chose led to a list of lifters with interesting stories worth sharing so I think the book has some value.

    The issue of testing standards across eras is a reasonable thing to raise. My own personal list of greatest weightlifters would discount anyone who cheated at any point in their career but this was Seb's book and his choice was to discount invalidated results but use all results that the IWF still considers valid. Again, if someone else produced a book with a different approach, I would welcome it and I'm sure Seb would too.

  15. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Exeter, UK
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like
    Completely agree with you here. Currently we are trying to get a few correspondents from other continents who can help provide us with more results.

    The front page is definitely something we will work on. Once we have more traffic we will have a better idea of how to categorise everything.

    The idea of promoting other people's camps etc is something we have thought about. By default we will end up promoting a few. For example Larrior will be helping with Chinese content so we will mention the camps he is running in China.

    Also agreed on the forum. It is a lot of work and places like this already have it covered.

    Appreciate the help!
    Last edited by Seb WL House; 03-22-2019 at 07:44 AM.

  16. Likes Hawkpeter liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •