ZooChat Cup - rebooted

[CGSwans]

I’ve been to four of the five zoos you object to, ANyhuis, and the idea of putting Hannover or Hamburg ahead of any one of them made me chuckle. I’ve already explained the rationale for including LA ahead of Sedgwick County.

I think, too, that what’s missed by people who object to one or the other choices (and this refers to anybody, not just ANyhuis) is that the game functions best when there’s a range of zoological styles. Antwerp’s heritage and old world charm provides a contrast to Leipzig’s slick, contemporary presentation that makes debate about their respective strengths and weaknesses interesting. There’s a lot of zoos that I’ve included on the basis that they simply demand inclusion, but at the margins I’ve tried to achieve a balance of old and new, and of collections oriented towards species diversity and those oriented towards exhibit quality. A competition that favoured one approach, such as the saccharine production of a Hannover over the homespun but incredibly diverse approach of Plzen, would not only be unfair to people whose tastes differ: it would make for a boring game.

More thought goes into this project than some might imagine.

 

[ANyhuis]

I'm curious what has made Bronx drop even further in your estimations, too a few weeks ago you stated that although it didn't make the top 5 North American collections for you, it was safely within the top 10.... now you imply it doesn't even make the top 13!

You're absolutely correct! I meant to edit that earlier (and have now). As some like to do with me, I was just trying to get a reaction from a certain poster. (not you)

 

[snowleopard]

I'm delighted to realise that I can trump @snowleopard, having visited 24 of the 32 - unless the remainder of his current Euro-trek suddenly swings south to Munich, I should be safe....

Damn you @sooty mangabey you damn dirty ape!* Oh well, I should have gone to Munich so that we could have at least been tied. Now I'll spend years in your shadow, wishing that I had added on one more great European zoo so that I wouldn't have to hear someone cackling with glee all the way across the Atlantic Ocean.

* famous movie quote

 

[twilighter]

This epic competison, made me curious how many of the ABC iconic giants are part of the 32 finalist's collections.The species in question are Elephants, Giraffes, Lions, Bears, Hippo, Rhino and Great Apes.

There is probably no surparise, that the Hippos are the most difficult to accomodate and are absent in whole 10 collections: Munich, North Carolina, Detroit, SDZSP, Columbus, Bronx, Zurich,Tierpark Berlin, Burgers and Chester.
There is no Rhino in Antwerp, Zurich, Prague,Dallas and Taronga (Seems like, there is in Dubbo, but I do not think this counts).
The Elephants are missing in Detroit, Plzen, Frankfurt and Woodland park.
No Bears in SDZSP and Dallas ?
Giraffes are notably absent in Zurich, luckily this will change soon.
And there is only one zoo without Great Apes and Lions - Berlin Tierpark (Here as in SDZSP absents are easy to explain).
Only Group E(Cologne, Denver, Miami and Pairi Daiza) has a full list and Zurich and Tierpark Berlin have the most missings - 3 each.

Mistakes are higly possible, so please correct me.

The other interesting question is which animal is present in only very few or even only one of the collections and is a magnet for zoo nerds. Being example Platypus in Taronga.

 

[Penshet]

There are also plans for a one or more white rhinos in Antwerp!

 

[antonmuster]

Group A
Los Angeles / Munich / North Carolina / Vienna
Group B
Berlin Zoo / Detroit / San Diego Zoo Safari Park / Wroclaw
Group C
Columbus / Plzen / Rotterdam / Singapore
Group D
Beauval / Frankfurt / San Diego Zoo / St Louis
Group E
Cologne / Denver / Miami / Pairi Daiza
Group F
Antwerp / Bronx / Leipzig / Zurich
Group G
Berlin Tierpark / Burgers / Taronga / Woodland Park
Group H
Chester / Dallas / Omaha / Prague

...I have visited exactly one zoo in each group (Vienna, Berlin, Singapore, San Diego, Cologne, Zurich, Taronga, Prague). This makes voting a bit difficult/problematic.

 

[CGSwans]

...I have visited exactly one zoo in each group (Vienna, Berlin, Singapore, San Diego, Cologne, Zurich, Taronga, Prague). This makes voting a bit difficult/problematic.

Not if you contribute your thoughts about the zoos you have visited, and others contribute their own about the ones you haven’t.

The game doesn’t require people to have visited both zoos in order to vote. All it needs is a willingness to be convinced and for people who *have* visited to take part.

 

[antonmuster]

So, I'm a bit confused about how voting works in the first round match-ups.

I will want you to think hard about whether to award all your points to one zoo, or to split your decision, because this isn’t only intended to produce closer matches. The overall percentage of the vote zoos receive across their three matches will be what resolves ranking ties across the group.

Since we are counting overall percentages across the three matches I naturally assumed that voting would be equivalent to proportional voting (which personally I find fairer and more reflective of overall votes), i.e. the overall average shares of votes decide which zoos move on to the next stage. Upon re-reading your post, it appears, that voting is winner-takes-all voting and proportional votes are only used to resolve ties (see example below):

The hypothetical matches between zoos A, B, C, and D
A-B: 51:49 // 1:0
C-D: 90:10 // 1:0
A-C: 51:49 // 1:0
B-D: 75:25 // 1:0
A-D: 51:49 // 1:0
B-C: 75:25 // 1:0

Proportional vote:
A: 51; B: 66.3; C: 54.7; D: 28
B and C move to next round

Winner takes all:
A: 3; B: 2; C: 1; D: 0
A and B move to next round

Please clarify.

 

[Coelacanth18]

@antonmuster Based on the analysis you just provided, it seems like the winner-takes-all system would reward zoos more for winning their matches/categories (even if the matches are close), while the proportional system would reward zoos more for trouncing one zoo in a particular category, even while maybe losing badly in another match. If that turns out to be the case, is proportional voting really fairer or more reflective, since it would help zoos of mixed quality at the expense of zoos that do modestly well across the board?

 

[antonmuster]

If that turns out to be the case, is proportional voting really fairer or more reflective, since it would help zoos of mixed quality at the expense of zoos that do modestly well across the board?

...that is very much a political question: Proportional representation - Wikipedia
Where I live, there is a strong (though not exclusive) tradition of proportional voting. I guess that may be why I feel it is more adequate and fair. But I didn't want to start a political discussion, I only wanted to get the question clarified. If we have winner-takes all voting, imo it makes little sense to debate the nuances of how clearly the votes go, once a victor is decided.

 

[antonmuster]

while the proportional system would reward zoos more for trouncing one zoo in a particular category, even while maybe losing badly in another match.

Do the math. That is precisely not how proportional voting works.

 

[Coelacanth18]

Do the math. That is precisely not how proportional voting works.

I didn't have to; you did.

A-B: 51:49 // 1:0
C-D: 90:10 // 1:0
A-C: 51:49 // 1:0
B-D: 75:25 // 1:0
A-D: 51:49 // 1:0
B-C: 75:25 // 1:0

Proportional vote:
A: 51; B: 66.3; C: 54.7; D: 28
B and C move to next round

C wins against D 90-10, thus "trouncing" it, while C "loses badly" to B in a 75-25 defeat... yet C advances to the next round anyway. Meanwhile, A didn't lose "badly" or indeed even lose once, yet it fails to advance.

...that is very much a political question: But I didn't want to start a political discussion, I only wanted to get the question clarified.

I didn't want to either, my comment was meant solely in the context of the game. My feelings about proportional representation in electoral systems would probably be different than in this game. But of course I agree that whatever @CGSwans has decided regarding the rules is fine with me.

 

[CGSwans]

The answer is somewhere in the middle.

Just as in a World Cup, points gained through winning matches is the first and primary qualification for advancement.

Where two zoos have the same number of wins and losses, then their average percentage vote is what breaks the tie between them. So for example, the current standings in Group A are:

Los Angeles 1 win, 0 losses, 72.5%
Vienna 1 win, 0 losses, 56.7%
Munich 0 wins, 1 loss, 43.3%
North Carolina 0 wins, 1 loss, 27.5%

The remaining matches in that group are:
LA v Vienna
LA v Munich
NC v Vienna
NC v Munich

If for example Munich beat both LA and North Carolina, LA defeated Vienna and Vienna defeated North Carolina, we would be in a position where three zoos each had two wins. That’s where the percentage scores would determine who advanced. They also resolve who qualifies first or second out of the group.

Percentages won’t necessarily come into play in all groups, but with eight groups they are very likely to factor in at least some of them. Indeed, it is only groups where the first qualifying zoo wins 3 matches and the second qualifying zoo wins 2 matches where the percentages wouldn’t play a role at all.

While I’m here I’ll further clarify that the percentages will be equally weighted, so that it is indeed the *average* percentage score across the three matches. If a zoo scores 60% of the vote in a match where 50 people vote (so a score of 90-60), and then scores 40% of the vote in which 20 people vote (a score of 24 to 36) then their weighted average will be 50%, rather than the roughly 55% of ‘raw’ votes they got.

 

[antonmuster]

Ok. So it is as I suspected. Thank you for clarifying. Curious to see how many tie-breakers we will need.

 

[CGSwans]

Apologies for the (comparatively brief!) lull in festivities.

A quick round-up of where we stand after each zoo has played once:

Group A
Los Angeles 50 defeated North Carolina 19 - ectotherms
Vienna 34 d Munich 26 - primates

Standings:
Los Angeles - 1 win, 72.5%
Vienna - 1 win, 56.7%
Munich - 0 wins, 43.3%
North Carolina - 0 wins, 27.5%

Los Angeles is very well placed here and should advance if they can beat at least one of the Europeans. A shout out to @nczoofan , whose posts in the LA vs NC thread single-handedly turned the tide. Not enough to win, but enough to avoid a shut-out that would have made North Carolina's task all but impossible. As it is they're still in there, but probably need to win both remaining games.

Group B
Detroit 58 d Berlin 53 - carnivores
Wroclaw 90 d San Diego Zoo Safari Park 0 - miscellaneous mammals

Standings:
Wroclaw - 1 win, 100%
Detroit - 1 win, 52.3%
Berlin Zoo - 0 wins, 47.7%
San Diego Zoo Safari Park - 0 wins, 0%

Two momentous results here. Wroclaw's 100% win over San Diego makes it very likely to advance: even if it fails to win one of its last two it'd still be a reasonable shot, depending on other results. San Diego, meanwhile, is in enormous trouble.

The bigger news, though, is Detroit's upset over Berlin. The European champion's still a decent chance to advance - the closeness of the loss helps - but given the legitimate concern pre-tournament that European zoos would dominate the American ones, this is a good indication that no zoo should take anything for granted.

Group C
Plzen 63 d Columbus 27 - miscellaneous mammals
Rotterdam 43 d Singapore 38 - ectotherms

Standings:
Plzen 1 win, 70%
Rotterdam 1 win, 53.1%
Singapore 0 win, 46.9%
Columbus 0 wins, 30%

Columbus was unfortunate enough to come up against Plzen on the latter's home turf. Singapore pushed Rotterdam to the edge, but two of Rotterdam's best categories - carnivores and ungulates - are still in play, whereas Singapore probably needs to draw its biggest strength (primates) and avoid its biggest weakness (birds).

Group D
Beauval 41 d Frankfurt 34 - carnivores
San Diego 61 d St Louis 8 - birds

Standings
San Diego 1 win, 88.4%
Beauval 1 win, 54.7%
Frankfurt 0 wins, 45.3%
St Louis - 0 wins, 11.6%

St Louis never really had a chance against arguably the best 'traditional' zoo for birds in the world. Beauval narrowly pulled out a win in one of the more divisive contests. Fortunately for Frankfurt, its best categories - ectotherms and miscellaneous mammals - are still out there somewhere. San Diego's sitting pretty with primates and ectotherms still waiting, too: the other three zoos are probably fighting for second.

Group E
Cologne 54 d Denver 9 - miscellaneous mammals
Miami 63 d Pairi Daiza 18 - ungulates

Standings:
Cologne 1 win, 85.7%
Miami 1 win, 77.8%
Pairi Daiza, 0 wins, 22.2%
Denver 0 wins, 14.3%

One of the more lopsided groups so far, but Pairi Daiza is stronger than that result suggests, whereas Miami - which struck gold with its best category against the biggest danger in the gruop - might be a touch weaker. Cologne did what it needed to do and probably only needs another win to get through.

Group F
Bronx 64 d Antwerp 38 - primates
Zurich 65 d Leipzig 37 - ectotherms

Standings:
Zurich 1 win, 63.7%
Bronx 1 win, 62.7%
Antwerp 0 wins, 37.3%
Leipzig 0 wins, 36.3%

Two near-identical results. Bronx would be slightly disappointed with its margin in the battle of the gorillas, whereas Zurich will be pretty damn pleased with its own. I watched with interest - but no opinion - the debate on whether Leipzig's off-show collection should count. Actually I lie - I do have an opinion, but I'm not going to share it because I don't want anybody to mistake that for a ruling. I reckon this contest is still tough to predict, other than that I suspect Antwerp needs to draw birds in a later match or it's in a very tough position.

Group G
Taronga 57 d Berlin Tierpark 27 - ectotherms
Burgers 41 d Woodland Park 22 - primates

Standings:
Taronga 1 win, 67.9%
Burgers 1 win, 65.1%
Woodland Park - 0 wins, 34.9%
Berlin Tierpark - 0 wins, 32.1%

The Tierpark becomes the second Berlin to suffer a shock upset against a tournament minnow: Taronga stands a pretty good chance of getting through from here, at least if it draws miscellaneous mammals and everybody's strange fascination with koalas and platypus comes into play. The Tierpark will be glad to see the back of both those categories, though.

Group H
Chester 46 d Dallas 20 - birds
Omaha 46 d Prague 32 - ectotherms

Standings:
Chester 1 win, 69.7%
Omaha 1 win, 59%
Prague 0 wins, 41%
Dallas 0 wins, 30.3%

Chester cruised past group H underdog Dallas in a match so uncontroversial it attracted only two replies: I'm hoping that's the low-point for the tournament. Omaha had a little bit more to do to get past Prague. The latter has a little bit of work to do, with one of its best categories out of the game, but it made the final of the European cup for a reason: the group of death remains deadly for now.

 

[TheGerenuk]

I'm going to offer my insight on matchups for Round 3 for Groups A-H as the round progresses.

Group A:
Categories Remaining: Ungulates and Carnivores
Matchups:
Los Angeles v. Munich
Carnivores: Munich has 15 species according to Zootierliste, with the most notable species being polar bear, fishing cat, South American sea lion, Pallas's cat, golden jackal and wolverine. Los Angeles also has quite a few species, among them being snow leopard, African wild dog, giant otter, fossa and bat-eared fox.
Ungulates: Both zoos have Asian elephant, takin and giraffe (Munich has reticulated, L.A. has Masai). Munich has species like vicuna, blackbuck, Eurasian elk (or moose if you're American) and mouse-deer for even-toed and kiang, Przewalski's horse, mountain zebra and Indian rhino for odd-toed. Los Angeles has large Malay chevrotain, two duiker species, lowland anoa, babirusa, Chinese goral, gerenuk, common hippo, okapi, peccary, pronghorn, pudu and bighorn sheep for even-toed, while only having three odd-toed ungulates: Grevy's zebra, Baird's tapir and mountain tapir.
I'm still undecided in which way I'll vote in either category unless I hear about what each one's enclosures are like.

North Carolina v. Vienna
Carnivores: Both zoos keep lion (Vienna is claimed to have the Barbary subspecies) and polar bear. North Carolina has ocelot, cougar, bobcat, sand cat, North American river otter, grizzly and black bears, California sea lion and red wolf. Vienna, meanwhile, has Asian small-clawed otter, Amur leopard, Siberian tiger, Eurasian lynx, cheetah, South American sea lion, banded and dwarf mongoose, meerkat and giant and red pandas. This one is more wait-and-see-how-good-Vienna's-enclosures-are-then-vote for me, as I know that North Carolina has mostly good enclosures for its kept species.
Ungulates: This is the one category North Carolina hopes to draw. Not only does it have a varied collection of ungulates (plus African elephants), many of them are exhibited in excellent enclosures. Vienna also has quite a few species too. Among species it has that its opponent does not include blackbuck, common hippo, vicuna, South American tapir, and Himalayan tahr. Both collections have close to the same number of species, but the question of who to vote for is: Do you care about rarities or enclosure quality?

Who Would Move On?
Based on match results, there's a good chance Vienna is moving to the knockout stage. It's probably going to come down to the L.A. v. Munich match to determine the other spot.

 

[CGSwans]

Hi TheGerenuk,

This is great content, but can you keep it for the matches themselves?

 

[TheGerenuk]

Hi TheGerenuk,

This is great content, but can you keep it for the matches themselves?

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by this. Is it just focus on the matches without going too specific or is it something else that I may not know of?

EDIT: I think I know what you mean now. Maybe stop with getting too specific in the remaining categories. I'll post an overview with this format soon.

 

[TheGerenuk]

But first, an addition for Group A.

Results of Round 2: Group A
Munich def. North Carolina 78-3: 96.2% - misc. mammals
Vienna def. Los Angeles 56-19: 74.6% - birds

New Standings: (percentage calculated by finding the average percentage of votes earned from all matches)
Munich - 1 win, 69.8%
Vienna - 2 wins, 65.7%
Los Angeles - 1 win, 49%
North Carolina - 0 wins, 15.7%

North Carolina seems to be almost out of the running by now, although one substantially good matchup next round could change that. Los Angeles isn't that far behind but could face some trouble with it's biggest strength (ectotherms) already gone. Vienna and Munich are likely going to advance bar any mistakes in the remaining two categories.

 

[TheGerenuk]

Group B

Remaining Categories: Ectotherms, Ungulates and co.

Round 2 Results:
Wroclaw def. Detroit 61-17 - birds: 78.2%
Berlin Zoo def. San Diego Zoo Safari Park 81-6 - primates: 93.1%

Standings:
Wroclaw - 2 wins, 89.1%
Berlin Zoo - 1 win, 70.4%
Detroit - 1 win, 37.1%
San Diego Zoo Safari Park - 0 wins, 3.5%

Matchups:
San Diego Zoo Safari Park v. Detroit
This can go one of two ways: either ectotherms is drawn and Detroit wins or ungulates is drawn and the Safari Park wins. However, I'm doubtful the Safari Park will advance to the knockout stage, but one high vote count win for Detroit could send it up to this stage.

Berlin Zoo v. Wroclaw
This is it. The battle we've been waiting for in this group. Both zoos seem to be good in both categories, but I'd be worried about Wroclaw going against Berlin Zoo in ectotherms, arguably its best strength. Ungulates probably wouldn't be better, but after all, it's up to the voters. Both are likely to advance in a more equal win-loss amount, but even with a loss in ectotherms, Wroclaw could still advance.