As you can see hosts only deleted non compliant entries so a team that submits one yolov5 and another compliant solution will be left with only one entry (the compliant one).
\nThose teams didn't respect the rules which states clearly to submit BOTH compliant solutions. So they should be punished or deleted for not competing fairly.
As you can see hosts only deleted non compliant entries so a team that submits one yolov5 and another compliant solution will be left with only one entry (the compliant one).
\nThose teams didn't respect the rules which states clearly to submit BOTH compliant solutions. So they should be punished or deleted for not competing fairly.
Yeah, I hope to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the other submission ran over the time limit or had an error. I also hope they are still removing submissions from the LB, there's still YoloV5 submissions within medal range (https://www.kaggle.com/naimur978/wheat-head-detection-yolov5-pseudo-labelling-oof).
", "rawMarkdown": "Yeah, I hope to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the other submission ran over the time limit or had an error. I also hope they are still removing submissions from the LB, there's still YoloV5 submissions within medal range (https://www.kaggle.com/naimur978/wheat-head-detection-yolov5-pseudo-labelling-oof).\n", "votes": 5, "replies": [ { "id": 977404, "postDate": "2020-08-19T13:06:54.187Z", "content": "Yeah I know at least 2 teams that used 1 compliant and 1 non compliant but kaggle team removed only non compliant entry ..
", "rawMarkdown": "Yeah I know at least 2 teams that used 1 compliant and 1 non compliant but kaggle team removed only non compliant entry .. " } ] }, { "id": 978054, "postDate": "2020-08-19T22:35:35.897Z", "content": "This does not make sense to me.
\nIf a team submits a yolov5 and a non-yolov5 solution, as you've stated, only their non-yolov5 solution would be accepted. This means, they only had one sub, whereas teams that submitted two compliant submissions had two subs (chances). So submitting a yolov5 solution is already a handicap. How does it make sense to DQ the team?
\nAt the end of the day, doesn't really matter to me one way or another (I don't have any yolov5 subs). But there were also contestants who started this competition early, maybe worked their way up with yolov5 and other models experimenting, then after things got crazy / after it was made clear and yolov5's license was not allowed, they decided to focus on other competitions, e.g. without selecting 'final sub' models. In that case, Kaggle would simply use their highest scoring 2 public subs. If one of them happens to be a yolo and another happens to be non-yolo, why would such a person be disqualified from the competition?
\nThat seems very strange to me. 🤔
", "rawMarkdown": "This does not make sense to me.\n\nIf a team submits a yolov5 and a non-yolov5 solution, as you've stated, only their non-yolov5 solution would be accepted. This means, they only had one sub, whereas teams that submitted two compliant submissions had two subs (chances). So submitting a yolov5 solution is already a handicap. How does it make sense to DQ the team?\n\nAt the end of the day, doesn't really matter to me one way or another (I don't have any yolov5 subs). But there were also contestants who started this competition early, maybe worked their way up with yolov5 and other models experimenting, then after things got crazy / after it was made clear and yolov5's license was not allowed, they decided to focus on other competitions, e.g. without selecting 'final sub' models. In that case, Kaggle would simply use their highest scoring 2 public subs. If one of them happens to be a yolo and another happens to be non-yolo, why would such a person be disqualified from the competition?\n\nThat seems very strange to me. 🤔", "votes": 4 }, { "id": 976569, "postDate": "2020-08-19T00:34:55.220Z", "content": "There's a ton of reasons some teams have 1 submission; it may be that it took more than 6 hours to run, or it was simply an error. Not a big deal IMO.
", "rawMarkdown": "There's a ton of reasons some teams have 1 submission; it may be that it took more than 6 hours to run, or it was simply an error. Not a big deal IMO.", "votes": 3, "replies": [ { "id": 976573, "postDate": "2020-08-19T00:36:27.297Z", "content": "You are right but I hope one of the reasons isn't what I stated above because it is a big deal when one of those teams gets a medal and a team with 2 compliant solutions don't.
", "rawMarkdown": "You are right but I hope one of the reasons isn't what I stated above because it is a big deal when one of those teams gets a medal and a team with 2 compliant solutions don't.", "votes": 4 } ] }, { "id": 977067, "postDate": "2020-08-19T09:28:39.113Z", "content": "so agreed!
", "rawMarkdown": "so agreed!", "votes": 1, "replies": [ { "id": 977411, "postDate": "2020-08-19T13:08:50.873Z", "content": "Even if we don't win we should at least be sure that all teams ahead of us have compliant solutions. Because a team that chose 1 compliant and another non compliant entry is worse than a team with 2 non compliant entries ..
", "rawMarkdown": "Even if we don't win we should at least be sure that all teams ahead of us have compliant solutions. Because a team that chose 1 compliant and another non compliant entry is worse than a team with 2 non compliant entries ..\n", "votes": 2 } ] }, { "id": 977772, "postDate": "2020-08-19T17:39:25.840Z", "content": "I agree. How have the Kaggle team done in previous competitions, should be the same.
", "rawMarkdown": "I agree. How have the Kaggle team done in previous competitions, should be the same.", "votes": 1, "replies": [ { "id": 977873, "postDate": "2020-08-19T19:06:28.467Z", "content": "Yeah extactly.
", "rawMarkdown": "Yeah extactly." } ] }, { "id": 979351, "postDate": "2020-08-20T19:20:14.040Z", "rawMarkdown": "", "votes": -1, "isDeleted": true } ], "comments": [ { "id": 976692, "author_name": "Matt", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2020-08-19T03:33:03.090000", "content": "Yeah, I hope to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the other submission ran over the time limit or had an error. I also hope they are still removing submissions from the LB, there's still YoloV5 submissions within medal range (https://www.kaggle.com/naimur978/wheat-head-detection-yolov5-pseudo-labelling-oof).
", "votes": 5, "replies": [ { "id": 977404, "author_name": "Nacir Bouazizi", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2020-08-19T13:06:54.187000", "content": "Yeah I know at least 2 teams that used 1 compliant and 1 non compliant but kaggle team removed only non compliant entry ..
", "votes": 0, "replies": [] } ] }, { "id": 978054, "author_name": "عثمان", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2020-08-19T22:35:35.897000", "content": "This does not make sense to me.
\nIf a team submits a yolov5 and a non-yolov5 solution, as you've stated, only their non-yolov5 solution would be accepted. This means, they only had one sub, whereas teams that submitted two compliant submissions had two subs (chances). So submitting a yolov5 solution is already a handicap. How does it make sense to DQ the team?
\nAt the end of the day, doesn't really matter to me one way or another (I don't have any yolov5 subs). But there were also contestants who started this competition early, maybe worked their way up with yolov5 and other models experimenting, then after things got crazy / after it was made clear and yolov5's license was not allowed, they decided to focus on other competitions, e.g. without selecting 'final sub' models. In that case, Kaggle would simply use their highest scoring 2 public subs. If one of them happens to be a yolo and another happens to be non-yolo, why would such a person be disqualified from the competition?
\nThat seems very strange to me. 🤔
", "votes": 4, "replies": [] }, { "id": 976569, "author_name": "Stanley Zheng", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2020-08-19T00:34:55.220000", "content": "There's a ton of reasons some teams have 1 submission; it may be that it took more than 6 hours to run, or it was simply an error. Not a big deal IMO.
", "votes": 3, "replies": [ { "id": 976573, "author_name": "Nacir Bouazizi", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2020-08-19T00:36:27.297000", "content": "You are right but I hope one of the reasons isn't what I stated above because it is a big deal when one of those teams gets a medal and a team with 2 compliant solutions don't.
", "votes": 4, "replies": [] } ] }, { "id": 977067, "author_name": "TonThatNam", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2020-08-19T09:28:39.113000", "content": "so agreed!
", "votes": 1, "replies": [ { "id": 977411, "author_name": "Nacir Bouazizi", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2020-08-19T13:08:50.873000", "content": "Even if we don't win we should at least be sure that all teams ahead of us have compliant solutions. Because a team that chose 1 compliant and another non compliant entry is worse than a team with 2 non compliant entries ..
", "votes": 2, "replies": [] } ] }, { "id": 977772, "author_name": "Kirderf", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2020-08-19T17:39:25.840000", "content": "I agree. How have the Kaggle team done in previous competitions, should be the same.
", "votes": 1, "replies": [ { "id": 977873, "author_name": "Nacir Bouazizi", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2020-08-19T19:06:28.467000", "content": "Yeah extactly.
", "votes": 0, "replies": [] } ] }, { "id": 979351, "author_name": "", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2020-08-20T19:20:14.040000", "content": "", "votes": -1, "replies": [] } ], "raw_markdown_by_id": { "976568": "As you can see hosts only deleted non compliant entries so a team that submits one yolov5 and another compliant solution will be left with only one entry (the compliant one). \nThose teams didn't respect the rules which states clearly to submit **BOTH** compliant solutions. So they should be punished or deleted for not competing fairly. \n", "976692": "Yeah, I hope to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the other submission ran over the time limit or had an error. I also hope they are still removing submissions from the LB, there's still YoloV5 submissions within medal range (https://www.kaggle.com/naimur978/wheat-head-detection-yolov5-pseudo-labelling-oof).\n", "978054": "This does not make sense to me.\n\nIf a team submits a yolov5 and a non-yolov5 solution, as you've stated, only their non-yolov5 solution would be accepted. This means, they only had one sub, whereas teams that submitted two compliant submissions had two subs (chances). So submitting a yolov5 solution is already a handicap. How does it make sense to DQ the team?\n\nAt the end of the day, doesn't really matter to me one way or another (I don't have any yolov5 subs). But there were also contestants who started this competition early, maybe worked their way up with yolov5 and other models experimenting, then after things got crazy / after it was made clear and yolov5's license was not allowed, they decided to focus on other competitions, e.g. without selecting 'final sub' models. In that case, Kaggle would simply use their highest scoring 2 public subs. If one of them happens to be a yolo and another happens to be non-yolo, why would such a person be disqualified from the competition?\n\nThat seems very strange to me. 🤔", "976569": "There's a ton of reasons some teams have 1 submission; it may be that it took more than 6 hours to run, or it was simply an error. Not a big deal IMO.", "977067": "so agreed!", "977772": "I agree. How have the Kaggle team done in previous competitions, should be the same.", "979351": "" } }