Thanks Adam.
I note there's no 14th on this list!
I may well be missing something, but should the people with same score all get same position and points?
1 20 Alun Jones 54
2 19 Gordon Moore 42
3 18 Chris Gould 39
4 17 Dan Chapman 28
5 16 Mike Fox 26
6 15 Neal Sturt 24
=7 14 John Young 14
=7 14 Mark Winfield 14
=9 12 Mike Norman 12
=9 12 Richard Biggs 12
=11 10 Carol Fox 8
=11 10 Bill Smith 8
=11 10 Rachael Franklin 8
=14 7 Gordon Holt 6
=14 7 George Fox 6
=14 7 Sam Annear 6
17 4 Dave Samuel 5
=18 3 Paul Dore 4
=18 3 Carl Hurran 4
20 1 Adam Franklin 3
21 1 Charlie Annear 2
22 1 Aaron Murray 1
Apologies if I'm forgetting something about our scoring.
Also, it might be a bit humiliating when people don't catch anything, but should they still say they were there and be on the list?
Shows how many people *really* entered the comp
It might show that comps are better attended than we may think?
i.e sometimes organisers get the hump because it looks like ony 6 people fished a comp, when it might have actually been 16 with 10 people not catching?
It can make a big difference if talking percentages attending comps, for example about 20% attendance on this Species hunt if you go by the final list, but add in non-scorers and it might be more like 30%
14th out of 30 rather than 14th out of 21 is more encouraging too? Especially for newbies and youngsters?
Or does it matter?
Sorry if I've got completely the wrong end of the stick!