Uh, I'm pretty sure the Power Rankings guys are already planning on doing the WVGCW... is this a joke? This is a joke, isn't it? PinstripeHourglass (talk) 06:14, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Dunno who those are! Anyway, this is as much or as little of a joke as you'd like it to be; it wasn't intended to be the end-all-be-all of rankings, definitely not intended to deter anyone else to have fun with this, and certainly not definitive but at the same time it was enough work that it's not entirely a joke either. Mukaikubo (talk) 12:57, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm a fan of analytical approaches (I'm the guy who put all the records into the female pages to start off with), I'm not sure this is the best way to do it with such a small sample size of matches; Carmen at #1 with only one singles win is a massive alarm bell in my opinion (couple other things are also a little weird). In any event, given the fact that power rankings are generally done as a matter of opinion and not numerical analysis, I'm not really that sold on this being a thing. Ninpen42 (talk) 06:45, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

It's not! There's not really a Good way to do objective rankings with small sample size; likely the best way to do it would be an implementation of Trueskill, but going into the Microsoft paper detailing that and reverse engineering out the math would be far too much like my day job to be fun anymore. Still, in college football- I've got a paper in late stages of writing with a few other people detailing a new way to adapt Elo to sports like college football that I hope to get published by the end of the year- I tend to gain confidence in Elo style rankings after ~6-7 games, and there are wrestlers hitting that mark now. Anyway, as mentioned about, this is just intended to be a fun little thing for people to care about as much or as little as they like; it is a hobby of mine to play with math to try to measure things that aren't amenable to mathematical ranking, and there's no harm in it as long as people don't take it super-seriously (or build a massive multibillion dollar college playoff system on it) Mukaikubo (talk) 12:57, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

well I like it! Doomknight66 (talk) 18:35, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the concept. I also like the idea of not penalizing non-winners in non-elimination, multi-person contenders matches. In the future, you (or whomever handles the rankings) should consider a minimum # of matches wrestled requirement to be included into the poll. Now to add subjectivity to the poll, the Champ should be #1 (Poison), then #2-5, in my MOST HUMBLE opinion, are Ivy, Cammy, Terra, and Zelda/Shiek. Also, anyone with zero wins should be at the bottom, especially newcomers. And yes, I like the college football analogy too. :) Uknowwhatitis (talk) 21:34, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Any plans for doing one for the men?  There's certainly plenty of sample size among the active wrestlers there. - Miare 17:22, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

It's coming. The density of men's matches early on is making it hard to chew through them very fast; as a comparison, all WVGCW so far amounts to 29 wrestlers in 57 matches; in comparison, the first five men's shows up to 11/27 are 43 wrestlers in 69 matches, greater than every single woman's match ever. It's kind of horrifying. Still, I'm chewing my way through. Mukaikubo (talk) 00:59, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with this, actually. I find stats interesting, and it might be intriguing to see how cold numbers match up with opinions from the heart. My only advice would be to highlight significant changes you see as you recalculate with shows airing. But otherwise, cool stuff! I do plan on getting the women in mine once that tournament ends, so we can compare there too. TheTOH (talk) 04:03, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Just offering my support to this approach, and to say I can't wait until those men's stats get crunched, especially compared to the crude percentage table I helped set up. Given some of the percentages you quoted on the SA thread, I assume you are using software to process all these? BlueChameleon 18:03, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

I really like the more objective weighted ranking system you have going, Mukaikubo. It's a nice long-term supplement to the short-term subjective Power Rankings that TheTOH has been doing in the Men's division, and plans on doing here. It;l be interesting to see how they contrast as the weeks go by. Keep up the good work! Davyinatoga (talk) 22:01, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

OK, edited this to bring it to the same format as the Men's computer power rankings, which I just added as well and linked to. Is there a way to change the title of this page? I'd kind of like to correct it to "WVGCW Computer Power Rankings", for consistency with the other page and to make clear that this is different than TOH's. Also, edited both to allow for a Change column (will begin with the next show, listing how much each wrestler rises or falls in a single show) and Current Status; also split off inactive wrestlers into their own category.

Done! TheTOH (talk) 01:49, May 21, 2013 (UTC)