Scoring Discrepancies

Help! I have created Captivate 5 modules and simply loaded them as swf files to the LMS (I have been trying for 15 months to get BB to work with SCORM in gradebook unsuccessfully). So, students print out an ending certificate to turn in as proof. Students go through the modules and answer 10 questions, weighted 10 points each. However, because of problems getting the Captivate 5 certificate to work correctly, I am using the Captivate 4 certificate. The problem is that students go through and get an 80% on the quiz results page, then advance to the certificate, which displays a totally random score (40%-Fail, 60% Fail, or just 10 points different and Pass). Some users are getting valid scores and other users distorted scores. I have no idea what is going on, but I am at my wit's end. I have 11 modules up for 100 employees, which translates to hundreds of hours of grief for us all. I have rechecked all the variables and settings a dozen times. Why would some be getting bad certificates and some getting accurate certificates? (I thought it was the Active/Inactive timings on buttons, but evidently not the problem.) I am desperate.

OK. Then you need to be aware that if you are NOT using the SCORM package output from Captivate your LMS is NOT going to pick up the scoring from your course modules as this will only work if the other required HTM, JS, and XML files are present that are required to support SCORM.
I don't personally use BlackBoard LMS but I know that Lilybiri uses it all the time, so she may be able to share the secret with you about how to get it to work with Cp output.
I've also got a page on the Captivate LMS Guide for BlackBoard, in case you haven't read it and tried the suggestions there:
http://www.infosemantics.com.au/adobe-captivate-learning-managment-system-lms-guide/blackb oard

Similar Messages

I need help writing a dive scoring program in C#, Help Please?

The state diving commission wants to computerize the scoring at its diving competitions. I have to write a program to automate the scoring of dives. Requirements:
After each dive, the user will be prompted to enter the:
diver's name;
diver's city;
degree of difficulty (ranges from 1.00 to 1.67); and
scores from five judges (scores can range from 0 to 10).
If an invalid score is entered, an error message will be displayed. The user will be prompted for the score repeatedly until a valid score is entered.
The program will then display the following information:
Diver's name
Diver's city
Dive final score: This is calculated by dropping the highest and lowest of the five judges' scores. The remaining three scores are added together, and the result is divided by 3 and then multiplied by the degree of difficulty.
The program will then prompt the user if she/he wants to process another dive. The user can type "Y" or "y" to continue, and "N" or "n" to quit.

Hi,
The forum supports VS setup and installation. I think your issue is not about the forum.
Please clarify your project type. Is it webform or winform?
If it is webform, please post your issue to ASP.NET forum.
If it is winform, please post it to
winform forum.
Regards.
We are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time. Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.
Click
HERE to participate the survey.

Transfer Order: discrepancies between GI and GR management

Hi everybody!
I'll appriciate your suggest to manage this critical scenarios:
Transfer Order from Pant A to Plant B (both the plants belong to the same company)
Case 1:
for an item GI qty is major than GE qty
For an item GI qty is less then GE qty
Case 2:
for an item the material code entered into STO and into Delivery and so registered at GI moment, is different from that effectively delivered and received at receiving plant.
Which are the necessary material documents that have to be created and so the necessary stock adjustements that have to be executed in order to solve every one discrepancies above described?
Many thanks
Roberta

Many thanks for the answers;
I'll try to explain better than before the scenarios
Case 1:
for an item GI qty is major than GE qty
--> do an addition Goods receipt for the remaining in-transit quantity.
alternative cancel the goods receipt, cancel the goods issue, redo the case with correct quantities
The case is that in the Delivery created against the STO the GI qty registered is major than that effectively receipt from the receipt plant; If I cancel the movements I've not traces if the discrepancies happened
For an item GI qty is less then GE qty
--> how can this be possible? anyhow, cancel the goods receipt and post it with the correct quantity.
alternative : cancel the goods receipt, cancel the goods issue, redo the case with correct quantities
The case is that in the Delivery created against the STO the GI qty registered is less than that effectively receipt from the receipt plant ( the whareauser has made a mistake during the picking activity); If I cancel the movements I've not traces if the discrepancies happened
Case 2:
for an item the material code entered into STO and into Delivery and so registered at GI moment, is different from that effectively delivered and received at receiving plant.
cancel the goods receipt, cancel the goods issue, redo in SAP with material that you shipped physically.
If I cancel the movements I've not traces if the discrepancies happened

4 signs to know that your lead scoring program is working

Getting the science of how your buyers engage with you is key for making revenue generation more predictable. We have worked with many sales and marketing organizations who look to putting in a lead scoring system to better qualify which leads should go to sales, validate that online campaigns are influencing MQL production and to make sales people more efficient. Regardless of whether you are testing the scoring methodology within marketing or have a system that is in place, I wanted to share 4 tips to highlight how you can determine if your current system is working before you make any changes.
Eloqua RPIs are moving in the right direction. Value, Reach, Conversion, Velocity, Return are Eloqua's revenue performance indicators and there is a connection between the output of your scoring system and each indicator. Ensuring that you have a process for scoring leads in your marketing database (reach), monitoring the speed (velocity) at which they move through funnel (conversion), will give you a sense of how well your system is performing and its impact on revenue generation. Value and Return will become clear once you have seen enough scored contacts flow through buying cycles to become customers in order for those to become clear.
Your top ranked leads outperform the other categories. Measuring fit and engagement are among the best practices for building a sound lead scoring system. Fit includes all of the firmographic pieces of information that your buyer gives you or can be appended via Eloqua's AppCloud. Engagement speaks to Digital Body Language or their online buying behavior. You should look at a conversion matrix for A1s down to D4s and look at the % of those MQLs become accepted (Lead Acceptance Rate by Lead Score report via CRM). You should also look at what happens when your target buyer, scores highly, and then becomes part of an opportunity - are there other patterns that are worth noting: opportunity close rates for A leads is x time faster than any other score? Having your own benchmark for what happens when you get an A1 lead will build confidence in your scoring model and drive the right behaviour.
Lead Acceptance rates rise. A good system will invoke sales' trust in marketing and the leads they generate. McAfee, the 2011 Markie Winner in our Clean House category sought after Eloqua's AppCloud tools for data.com and Demandbase when they saw a dual decline in Lead Scores and fewer leads going over to CRM over time. Missing data impacts, routing, lead scoring, segmentation, reporting and trust with your sales team. McAfee addressed the problem and saw an overall WW increase in lead acceptance and a 25% increase in acceptance in one of their global regions. On the behavior side, to ensure that you have the right patterns, you should look at any closed deals that were touched by marketing and look for the campaigns that influenced the buyers (first campaign, last campaign before opp creation) and chat with sales about any tactics that are offline that can be looped into your scoring model. Either way, if sales has trust in the data - both from a fit and engagement perspective, they will work the leads and any hesitation to accept should go away.
Average / Total Opportunity Value rises. Being able to model your buyer's actions into a science may give your sales team an opportunity to cross sell or deepen that initial conversation. 2011 Markie Winner for Integration Innovation, Progress Software experienced a drop in lead creation, but a rise in total opportunity creation and closed won revenue by leveraging Eloqua's AppCloud to pull in buyer attributes to support scoring. If you can instill confidence in your buyer early on, you are more likely to get their trust and be able to create a dialogue that leads to a superior buying experience and more revenue throughout that relationship.
Let me know your thoughts and your experiences with measuring the impact of your lead scoring system. I hope that you continue to look to Topliners for inspiration and to take your usage of marketing automation to the next level!
-Chang

Nice post Adrian.
I think another great indicator is your SAL to SQL rate increases as well. Ultimately, sales wants opportunities from Marketing not qualified leads. Another great indicator is time spent in the Qualifiy stage. Looking at a pipeline aging report, if your lead scored SALs are moving from SAL to SQL quicker than other channels, you know your sales team is having an easy time qualifiying these leads - an indicator that your lead scoring program is doing a good job of finding the right person at the right time.

EastWest Symphonic, LA Scoring Strings - How many instances can you run?

Hi - After investing in a new quod core recently and been really depressed by the performance I'm getting I wondered whether users of EW Symphonic Orchestra and/or LA Scoring Strings, Vienna Symphonic etc... could share with me how many instances they can load and run in a mix.

Hi,
i understand your frustration
Below is a list of the things I had do to to make my system usable:
1. Turn Airport & BlueTooth : OFF
2. Apple System Preferences:
Energy Saver: Set Computer and Hard Drive to: Never Sleep,
Software Updates: Check for update: Uncheck
3. Logic Preferences, Audio , Devices:
I/O Buffer Size 512
Software Monitoring: OFF
Process Buffer Range: Large
Audio Units Manager: Uncheck all AU plugins not being used!
4. Logic Preferences, Audio, General:
Track Mute/solo: CPU-saving(Slow Response)
Sample Accurate Automation : OFF
Plug-In Delay Compensation: OFF
5. Assign ALL tracks thru Buss's, See Link below
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3161
6. Keep a muted audio track in the arrange page and have it selected
LOgic uses additional CPU power if a midi track is selected
7. Keep at least 50gb or more of free space on the hard drive
8. Run the freeware program Mac Janitor
9. Do not run any other programs during the Logic Session. Close all programs not being used.
10. VERY IMPORTANT! Restart computer to flush ram. Do this each and every time you reload your Logic Sequence.
Also check out this link:
http://www.youtube.com/user/SFLogicNinja#p/a
I hope this helps

Creating a scoring column based on threatened species lists

I'm doing scoring for sites based on the number of threatened species at each particular site and the threat status of each of the threatened species.
A threatened species could either have a threat status of nationally_critical, nationally_endangered, or nationally_vulnerable.
I am trying to write a query will display a column called TOTAL_SCORE where:
TOTAL_SCORE = (number of Nationally Critical species * 1) + (number of Nationally Endangered species * 0.5) + (number of Nationally Vulnerable species * 0.25)
I'm able to do this using excel formulas but I have no idea how to go about writing it in SQL. I would have attached the excel spreadsheet but attachments are not allowed in this forum I think?
See below for descriptions and DDL for the tables I have:
I have three tables: SITES, SPECIES_LIST, THREAT_STATUS_SCORES
The SITES table contains the site number and the species present at each particular site:
SITE_NUMBER    SPECIES_PRESENT
1            Olearia_pachyphylla, Oligosoma_whitakeri, Spio_aequalis
2            Ophioglossum_petiolatum, Ourisia_modesta, Pachycladon_exile
3            Dichelachne_micrantha, Galaxias_pullus
4            Spio_aequalis
5            Pachycladon_exile, Geranium_retrorsum
6            Olearia_pachyphylla, Ourisia_modesta, Oligosoma_judgei
7            Drosera_pygmaeaThe SPECIES_LIST table has a list of nationally critical, nationally endangered, and nationally vulnerable species:
NATIONALLY_CRITICAL               NATIONALLY_ENDANGERED      NATIONALLY_VULNERABLE
Olearia_pachyphylla               Oligosoma_judgei          Dichelachne_micrantha
Ophioglossum_petiolatum               Oligosoma_whitakeri          Drosera_pygmaea
Ourisia_modesta                       Spio_aequalis                  Geranium_retrorsum
Pachycladon_exile               Galaxias_pullus          Gratiola_concinnaThe THREAT_STATUS_SCORES table shows the score given to each threat status i.e. each nationally vulnerable species gets a score of 1,
each nationally endangered species gets a score of 0.5, and each nationally vulnerable gets a score of 0.25:
THREAT_STATUS           SCORE
NATIONALLY_CRITICAL     1
NATIONALLY_ENDANGERED     0.5
NATIONALLY_VULNERABLE     0.25DDL:
CREATE TABLE sites
(site_number varchar2(3) not null,
species_present varchar2(255),
CONSTRAINT site_number_pk PRIMARY KEY (site_number))
CREATE TABLE species_list
(nationally_critical varchar2(50),
nationally_endangered varchar2(50),
nationally_vulnerable varchar2(50))
CREATE TABLE threat_status_scores
(threat_status varchar2(50),
score number(4,2))
INSERT INTO sites VALUES (1, Olearia_pachyphylla, Oligosoma_whitakeri, Spio_aequalis);
INSERT INTO sites VALUES (2, Ophioglossum_petiolatum, Ourisia_modesta, Pachycladon_exile);
INSERT INTO sites VALUES (3, Dichelachne_micrantha, Galaxias_pullus);
INSERT INTO sites VALUES (4, Spio_aequalis);
INSERT INTO sites VALUES (5, Pachycladon_exile, Geranium_retrorsum);
INSERT INTO sites VALUES (6, Olearia_pachyphylla, Ourisia_modesta, Oligosoma_judgei);
INSERT INTO sites VALUES (7, Drosera_pygmaea);
INSERT INTO species_list VALUES (Olearia_pachyphylla, Oligosoma_judgei, Dichelachne_micrantha);
INSERT INTO species_list VALUES (Ophioglossum_petiolatum, Oligosoma_whitakeri, Drosera_pygmaea);
INSERT INTO species_list VALUES (Ourisia_modesta, Spio_aequalis, Geranium_retrorsum);
INSERT INTO species_list VALUES (Pachycladon_exile, Galaxias_pullus, Gratiola_concinna);
INSERT INTO threat_status_scores VALUES (NATIONALLY_CRITICAL, 1);
INSERT INTO threat_status_scores VALUES (NATIONALLY_ENDANGERED, 0.5);
INSERT INTO threat_status_scores VALUES (NATIONALLY_VULNERABLE, 0.25);Any help on how I could add a TOTAL_SCORE column to the SITES table would be much appreciated.
I'm using oracle 11g
Edited by: 993451 on Apr 1, 2013 4:01 PM
Edited by: 993451 on Apr 1, 2013 4:02 PM

If you're using Oracle 11.2, then the query for total_scores might be:
SELECT    pr.site_number
,       LISTAGG (s.species_name, ', ') WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY s.species_name)
                           AS species_present
,       SUM (t.score)          AS total_score
FROM       species_present     sp
JOIN       species          s   ON   s.species_id    = sp.secies_id
JOIN       threat_status_scores     t   ON   t.threat_level = s.threat_level
GROUP BY pr.site_number
ORDER BY pr.site_numberThanks for this. This works great, all I needed to do was change a minor spelling error and not include the pr prefix at the start of site_number. What is the pr prefix? Sorry, I'm a beginner at sql.
Here is the new full DDL based on your post:
CREATE TABLE species
(   species_id          NUMBER (10)     PRIMARY KEY
,   species_name     VARCHAR2 (50)     UNIQUE
,   threat_level     VARCHAR2 (1)     CONSTRAINT species_danger_chk
                          CHECK (threat_level IN ( 'C'
                                  , 'E'
                                  , 'V'
INSERT INTO species (species_id, species_name,          threat_level)
             VALUES (1,          'Olearia pachyphylla', 'C');
INSERT INTO species (species_id, species_name,          threat_level)
             VALUES (2,          'Oligosoma judgei',     'E');
INSERT INTO species (species_id, species_name,          threat_level)
             VALUES (3,          'Aster alpinus',     NULL);
CREATE TABLE species_present
(   site_number          NUMBER (10)
,   species_id          NUMBER (10)
,   CONSTRAINT species_present_pk PRIMARY KEY ( site_number
                                            , species_id
INSERT INTO species_present (site_number, species_id) VALUES (1, 1);
INSERT INTO species_present (site_number, species_id) VALUES (1, 4);
INSERT INTO species_present (site_number, species_id) VALUES (1, 9);
INSERT INTO species_present (site_number, species_id) VALUES (4, 9);
CREATE TABLE threat_status_scores
(threat_level varchar2(50),
score number(4,2));
INSERT INTO threat_status_scores VALUES ('C', 1);
INSERT INTO threat_status_scores VALUES ('E', 0.5);
INSERT INTO threat_status_scores VALUES ('V', 0.25);
SELECT    site_number
,       LISTAGG (s.species_name, ', ') WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY s.species_name)
                           AS species_present
,       SUM (t.score)          AS total_score
FROM       species_present     sp
JOIN       species          s   ON   s.species_id    = sp.species_id
JOIN       threat_status_scores     t   ON   t.threat_level = s.threat_level
GROUP BY site_number
ORDER BY site_number;>
Why not have one table, but a separate row for each species, with the level of endangerment (if any) being an attribiute of the species? The distinction between >citically endagered species and vulnerable species is important, of course, but aren't the two kinds iof species fundamentally the same kind of entity? Don't they >have the same kinds of attributes? Aren't they used in the same way?
Here's one possible table design:
You're right. It is much better to have a single table for threatened species with three columns: species_id, species_name, and threat_level.
Since species_name is unique, and (I imagine) it is unlikely to change, then there might be an argument for not having a species_id, and making species_name the >primary key.Species_names are unique, however believe it or not they do sometimes change - at least in New Zealand! The botanists and ecologists put out updated species lists every few years and occassionally they will change species names for various reasons.
You're right; that would be a problem. The number of columns in a table is fixed, and while that number can be adjusted, it's not something that people do all the >time. Tables can have as many rows as necessary, and adding or removing rows is easy. Put each sighting on a separate row, something like this:
CREATE TABLE species_present
(   site_number          NUMBER (10)
,   species_id          NUMBER (10)
,   CONSTRAINT species_present_pk PRIMARY KEY ( site_number
                                            , species_id
INSERT INTO species_present (site_number, species_id) VALUES (1, 1);
INSERT INTO species_present (site_number, species_id) VALUES (1, 4);
INSERT INTO species_present (site_number, species_id) VALUES (1, 9);
INSERT INTO species_present (site_number, species_id) VALUES (4, 9);I think that this is a good idea. However, I'm not allowed to change sites table (I should have mentioned this earlier).
What happens is that contractors collect the threatened species information and they have already put the table in this format:
CREATE TABLE sites
(site_number varchar2(3) not null,
species_present varchar2(255),
CONSTRAINT site_number_pk PRIMARY KEY (site_number))
INSERT INTO sites VALUES (1, 'Olearia_pachyphylla, Oligosoma_whitakeri, Spio_aequalis');
INSERT INTO sites VALUES (2, 'Ophioglossum_petiolatum, Ourisia_modesta, Pachycladon_exile');
INSERT INTO sites VALUES (3, 'Dichelachne_micrantha, Galaxias_pullus');
INSERT INTO sites VALUES (4, 'Spio_aequalis');
INSERT INTO sites VALUES (5, 'Pachycladon_exile, Geranium_retrorsum');
INSERT INTO sites VALUES (6, 'Olearia_pachyphylla, Ourisia_modesta, Oligosoma_judgei');
INSERT INTO sites VALUES (7, 'Drosera_pygmaea');

Drag and Drop Interaction Scoring

Hi-
I've created a drag and drop interaction for a quiz with four
objects. Each object has to match up to the correct spot in order
for the user to get the answer correct. I've done this type of
interactions before successfully and not had a problem with
scoring.
But this time .. the only thing I can see that's different
about this quiz is that I'm not assigning any points in the "Score"
field - I am instead using the Status of Correct Response alone.
I've found that this interaction scoring works perfectly for my
other quiz interactions but there seems to be a problem with the
drag and drop - when the user moves the objects around and
temporarily places an object in the wrong (or maybe even correct)
spot, each of these movements is being racked up as correct in this
interaction So, if there's an ambivalent user they're going to get
many more points than is even supposed to be possible.
I can't see anything different that I've done with this
interaction other than the scoring. I changed to correct response
scoring because it was the only way I could figure out how to reset
the quiz score after the user leaves and comes back. (using
TotalCorrect)
Anyway, I'm open to ideas - even if it's not the scoring -
any help would be appreciated!
Thanks -
Cammia

Don't use the quiz knowledge objects and code yourself...?
You'll find many on here who can help you with hand coding
and probably none
who know much about implementing those KO's who can answer
questions. The
reason is if you know enough to be able to answer questions,
you know enough
to know that these KO's are a short term crutch that cause
long term
problems.
HTH;
Amy
"Cammia" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:e8jm2u$77e$[email protected]..
> Hi-
>
> I've created a drag and drop interaction for a quiz with
four objects.
> Each
> object has to match up to the correct spot in order for
the user to get
> the
> answer correct. I've done this type of interactions
before successfully
> and
> not had a problem with scoring.
>
> But this time .. the only thing I can see that's
different about this quiz
> is
> that I'm not assigning any points in the "Score" field -
I am instead
> using
> the Status of Correct Response alone. I've found that
this interaction
> scoring
> works perfectly for my other quiz interactions but there
seems to be a
> problem
> with the drag and drop - when the user moves the objects
around and
> temporarily
> places an object in the wrong (or maybe even correct)
spot, each of these
> movements is being racked up as correct in this
interaction So, if
> there's an
> ambivalent user they're going to get many more points
than is even
> supposed to
> be possible.
>
> I can't see anything different that I've done with this
interaction other
> than
> the scoring. I changed to correct response scoring
because it was the only
> way
> I could figure out how to reset the quiz score after the
user leaves and
> comes
> back. (using TotalCorrect)
>
> Anyway, I'm open to ideas - even if it's not the scoring
- any help would
> be
> appreciated!
>
> Thanks -
> Cammia
>

Adobe Captivate 5 - Problem with scoring with Quiz exported to PDF

Hello,
I have created several review quizzes that have been exported to pdf and uploaded to the internet. They are elementary school quizzes that are listed on a canned school web hosting site that only allows uploads in common formates such as Microsoft Word and pdf.
I tested these pdf quizzes with no problems and from my computers they still work fine; however some people are having problems with the scoring element. Some - not all questions are not tabulated correctly in the end review section. I have been told that the questions were answered correctly but the end review showed some questions as wrong or not answered. The quizzes are reveiw only and no reporting or LMS is used.
Has anyone else seen this? I had a feeling that perhaps the adobe reader was at fault, but so far everyone is using reader version 9.
One of the quizzes can be found here.. http://www.germantownschools.org/faculty/jwoger/4th_math_topic_1_quiz[1].pdf
Tim

Hi,
I have since my initial post been told that certain elements of the quiz slides are also not working. Correct answers have a sound clip that plays when the "correct" option is selected. This is not working for some users. Like I said I have no problem with the pdf quiz from any of the computers I use and don't know why it doesn't work for others.
tim

Frame size discrepancies in project settings?

Hi Guys
I have some new information and some observations on my problems with getting full screen output.
I looked through all the project settings and I noticed that the ones I was trying to use…
HD 1080i (60i) and HDV 1080i 30 say that the output is at a16 to 9 ratio and have a frame size of 1440 by 1080i.
This is the frame size or ratio, I kept trying to import.
I finally realized that this isn't a frame size that is proportional to the image ratio that it lists.
16 by 9 would really be proportional to 1440 by 810.
The 1440 by 1080 video that I import using either of these,does not export full screen even if it’s exported the same size it comes in, i.e.1440 in and 1440 out.
So I looked through the project setting for a selection where the stated ratio and the frame size matched.
I found HDV 720p 30.
16 by 9 at a 1280 by 720 frame size.
This would be an easy size for my to work in.
So I made a video at that size then loaded it into PE8 and it exported fine.
Full screen no border. In fact it comes out full screen no matter what size I export it.
When I exported the same video at 1600 by 900 it exported full screen and looked fine.
Then I went back and loaded the same 1280 by 720 video inthe HDV 1080i 30 settings.
It also came out full screen with no border.
So the problem is that as far as I can see the selection screen is wrong about the frame size for both the HD 1080i and the HDV 1080isettings.
You really have to load in something at 1600 by 900 or proportional to that.
And as far a I can find there is no setting that supports any thing other the wide screen except for the Standard 48kHz settings.
It looks like unless you want to go to a wide screen format 720 by 480 is the only option.
Now I’ll have to decide whether I want to do future projects wide screen or live with the restrictions on frame size.
I hate to change horses in the middle of the stream so I may just stick with the smaller size for the Lucy videos but other projects I will do wide screen.
Thanks again for all the help.
Mike

This question is from some other forum member. Don't know why they're linked to my e-mail address.
Fran (luvsfotos)
> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 22:22:36 -0600
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Frame size discrepancies in project settings?
Hi Guys
Ok, I think I get it at last.
So when I create a 1440 by 1080 file, to use in the 1080i format, it should change the PAR from 1 to 1.333 when I create it, but since I can't control that I get an image that is too small, even though the pixel size is the same. The aspect ration should still end up 16 by 9.
So since Poser creates everything with a PAR of 1, my only option if I want a wide screen video is to actually pick a 16 by 9 ratio when I output it and ignore the listed frame size.
I still don't quite get why the image is both shorter and narrower, it seems like it should only be narrower but I'll live with it.
And there is no way to make PE8 output a full height image in the wide screen format that 3 by 4 except to drag it larger in the preview window.
And there is no advantage in doing that since I'm still using a 16 by 9 window and getting the file size that goes with it.
So if I want to work in a 3 by 4 format then the Standard 48kHz format it the only option.
Well at least I know what to do next time.
That should save a lot of time.
I may just give up and go to 16 by 9 and quit fighting it.
Thanks again.
Mike
>

Find Discrepancies between two tables

Hello Everyone,
I have two tables payment and delegate, my payment table for some reason have more entries then in delegate table.
I can do something like , if the records in delegate table don't exsist....and they are in payments table
SELECT * FROM
Delegate d, Payment p
WHERE d.username != p.username
The usernames in payment table have to be in delegate table...So now if I want to look for discrepancies how should I find that out....
Tables Records :
Delegate :
Username Paid
User1 Y
User2 Y
User3 Y
User4 Y
User5 N
User6 N
Payment
username
User1
User2
User3
User4
User5
User6
So, basically I'm looking that which records are Paid = 'N' and somehow are in payments table:
In the above example result should be User5 and User6....
I'm using the old database, so please no fancy queries...even if it takes long time doesn't matter..
Please advise..
Thanks,
Harsimrat
Message was edited by:
Harsimrat

Perfect and if I want to do it other way around....Where there is an entry with Paid = 'y' in delegate table and is not in payments table. How can i find that out ??
Really appreciate.
Thanks,
Harsimrat

Scored Items not starting at beginning on second try.

I have a movie that has no actual quiz items yet when the
student exits the course I want the LMS course summary page to read
Completed - 100%, Passed. Score - 100%. I can achieve this on our
IBM LMS by adding a scored interaction on my Next button on the
next to last page. Works great. I get the results displayed that I
want.
The issue comes up when the student launches the course a
second time. Not many do, but occasionally it happens. For some
reason the movie does not begin on the first page. It launches and
jumps to the page after the scored button, skipping the entire
movie. I have tried moving the scored button to the first page, but
the movie after launching jumps to a screen in the middle of the
presentation. There is no logical reason as to why it jumps to the
middle screen, it just does. I have tried placing the the scored
interaction in a number of different places and even having
multiple scored interactions, nothing seems to work. Any
suggestions you might have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for
your help.

CitizenseLearning,
I have very limited experience with working with an LMS so
take this for what it is worth, but this sounds like it may have
something to do with bookmarking within the LMS itself. I say this
since Captivate does not contain any kind of bookmarking capability
itself and should always start on the first page unless there is an
outside app (Flash actions script, LMS bookmarking, etc.) telling
it to do otherwise.

SAP GRC 10.0 Risk Management - Forecasting Horizon Scoring Analysis Mode

Hi everyone,
In SAP GRC 10.0 Risk Management Support Package 7, we need to assess a corporate risk by performing an automatic analysis aggregation based on a scoring analysis profile.
The problem is that corporate risks must be created based on a forecasting horizon.
So, can we create forecasting horizons with scoring analysis mode? How? Must be enabled through customizing or applying a SAP note?
Best Regards,
Chema Traveso

Hi,
I think this is still user-specific, as it was in 5.X. I have checked the new GRC authorisation object parameters delivered within the roles and also tried to see if a Admin user was able to see all the variants created by the different users, but so far I have not found a solution.
It may be worthwhile to raise this in "IdeaPlace", hoping it gets enough votes and SAP's attention for implementing in a future Support Pack delivery.

Quiz scoring seems to be all or nothing?

Sorry if this is already answered elsewhere...
I create 1 quiz slide, eg fill in the blank, and have 8
blanks to fill in, and give the 'Points' field a value of 8.
Yet when I take the quiz, I have to get all 8 correct to get
the 8 points. If I miss even 1, I get 0 out of 8.
(yes I could put each of the 8 blanks on its own fill in the
blank slide, but that's not practical for what I'm doing)
Why doesn't there seem to be a scoring option for 7,6,5...
out of 8 correct? This also seems to be the case with other quiz
styles. Why is it all or nothing scoring?
Thanks for any help,
Keith

Hi Keith,
I'm finding the same, unfortunately. What sort of Hitler
designed the fill-in-the-blanks slide? "You scored less than 100%,
you worthless wretch. You must walk the plank."
How hard is it to loop through the fecking answers, checking
each one against a value? It's 2 arrays and a loop.
Please feel free to reply with a repudiation if we've
overlooked something here.
Thanks.
Pete.

The topic of scoring to film with logic...

Hello everyone,
I wanted to get a little discussion started on the topic of scoring to picture and how people here do it with logic.
My experience with this has been quite on the side of frustration, and I've always thought "wow--- is it really this dumb?.. It CAN'T be this dumb.."
So, when I talk about scoring to film, the biggest issue is the scene change-- something might be building and building and tempos increasing and rising and rising, and then suddenly BAM.. scene change, slow ambient music... Then scene change, fast paced intense music... When dealing with creating music notation for something like this, it's especially important to make sure that the note events are strict in time and on the beat (quantized, etc) so that your scores make visual sense and players won't hate you. "Yeah-- umm this 32nd note really is a quarter note happening over here.. But.. You know how Logic is.."
My thought always was-- if Logic just had a "create downbeat" operation, it would solve all of these problems. You could have a section of music that abruplty ends at Measure 175 on beat 2.7431 and force 2.7431 to become measure 176-- and then you could assign a new tempo, a new time signature, etc.
Logic's manual likes to talk about using tempo operations to achieve this, but this is when I ask "is it REALLY that dumb?".. I mean to be required to have a zillion crazy tempo changes in order to bypass beat 2.7432 through the end of beat 4, just seems counter intuitive, non-user friendly, and completely non-musical.
So... I am asking, how do you guys feel about this, and how do you deal with it.. Am I the only one who thinks this is dumb?
-patrick

There has been no improvement or change in automation behavior between 7.x and 8.x, unfortunately. If anything the behavior has gotten buggier/worse in L8. But that's a different story and not related to what I mentioned previously about beat mapping.
Automation data is time-stamped when it's written; but if you change the tempo after the fact, the spacing between notes will either compress or expand. Therefore, automation data (TBA, track-based automation) is "malleable" with respect to tempo changes. This actually makes sense to a certain extent, but it's not a good paradigm for automation to operate under when you've got automation data associated with specific regions. To put it more simply, if you lock a region and there's automation associated with it, the region will be locked but not the automation data.
The workaround, as you hinted at, is to convert your TBA automation data to region-based automation data (RBA) prior to commencing tempo change operations. This is exactly what I do in this case, and it's become a regular part of my routine. It's kind of a PITA process, but absolutely necessary if you want to preserve your automation data prior to commencing any edits to the tempo.
The procedure is to create an additional track for every track in your arrangement. If you're doing big orchestral stuff, for example, you may have dozens if not hundreds of tracks, maybe within folders, etc. That's where the "PITA" part comes in. But anyway, once you have a duplicate of every track in the arrangement, use the pencil tool to create a blank region on once of those tracks. Extend that region to go a little beyond the end of the arrangement. Use the color palette to give it a color that's not used for any of the other regions in your arrangement (you'll see why soon).
Copy that blank region to every single one of those duplicate tracks. Then, with one of those blank regions selected, use the "select similar color" key commands and all of the blank regions will now be selected. Then invoke the command to move all automation data to region data.
Finally, Select-ALL and tjem SMPTE-lock all of the regions in your arrangement. At this point you can change tempo/commence beat mapping with impunity. (For S&G's, if not for safety, check the "protect MIDI" checkbox in beat mapping prior to doing any beat mapping operations).

AS2 Certificate widget scoring issue

I received a fix from someone on the Captivate forum that is supposed to fix the AS2 Certificate widget scoring issue. The results on my Score Results page appear correctly, but the results on the certificate do not match those on the Score Results page. I tried to use the fix the provided (another widget that you insert at the beginning of the project) but it did not solve my problem. I am desperate for a solution to this and have tested the project what feels like 100 times to try to figure out how to fix this problem. I apologize in advance if this has been addressed in another string. I have spent a great deal of time going through the forums and have found some discussion on this issue, but no concrete solution anywhere. Can anyone offer any insight?
FYI: I am using Captivate 4 and my project is set to AS2.
Thanks!

Weird ... I need to ask a totally unrelated question and came to the forum using a link I'd bookmarked ... to the "Certificate Not Widget Scoring Correctly" thread. And here's your post at the top of the list.
I haven't played with scoring in quite awhile, so I'm not much help and maybe you've already read this thread, but just in case: here's the link: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/598503.
Hope it's helpful.

Scoring Discrepancies

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for