Leadhead Grouping

[GACJ]

Comment from Peter Blight on 05/03/2019.

I have always thought that the Lead Head Codes as described here:
https://cccbr.github.io/method_ringing_framework/leadheadcodes.html
are unnecessarily complicated. To most ringers they are meaningless
gibberish that cause the eyes to glaze over when occasionally heard in
the pub. And, perhaps more importantly, I doubt if any composers of
spliced use them in any sort of algebra for determining the length of a
course. I realise that these codes have been in use for a great many
years but perhaps their usefulness should be re-evaluated.

I suggest that the present codes be replaced by a number representing
the number of "equivalent" leads of Plain Bob or Grandsire. For example,
Westminster Surprise, which has the same lead end order as Plain Bob
would have code +1 and Cambridge would have code +2 (because the Lead
Head after one lead of Cambridge is the same as the Lead Head after two
leads of Plain Bob). Similarly, London would have code -1 and Cornwall
would have code -2.

Even bell methods with plain hunt at the Lead End could be identified
with an asterisk so, for example, Bristol S Major would have code +1*,
Bristol S Royal would have +2* and Bristol Max would have code +3*. No
special case would be necessary for differential methods and their
relationship with similar variations would be more obvious. So Sgurr
A'Chaorachain would be -4* (instead of k1) and Sgurr Differential would
be -3 (instead of d). Who would guess that the only difference between
k1 and d is the lead end change?

I don't claim any great originality for this scheme which I feel sure
must have been in unofficial use for some time, probably for as many
years as people have been composing spliced. And I apologise if this
proposal is already under consideration.

[GACJ]

While there is good logic in what Peter suggests, I don't think changing the leadhead codes is practicable for a number of reasons:

• The leadhead codes were first used in the Plain Major Collection of 1926, probably as a shorthand that kept definition of methods succinct in method listings. The Central Council Collection of Minor Methods used a different coding system and further conventions for Minor have been introduced in some of the Whiting Society's books on Minor.
• The current codes are very well entrenched in the minds of many generations of ringers as well as the literature. It seems very unlikely that a new system would gain any traction, and the old system would need to be retained for people to make sense of older books and periodicals.
• They are part of the definition of the MicroSiril Libraries and the Central Council Method XML specification and libraries.
• The suggestion is to replace the leadhead group of Bristol S Major or Kent TB Major with '-1*' instead of 'm'. I am not convinced that ringers would see that as less gibberish than 'm', probably the reverse. Most ringers would not be able to recite the leadheads of Plain Bob, so an index into them would be no help. What they are more likely to know is that the place bell order of group 'f' and 'm' is 2357864 [for Major].
• The framework page on leadhead codes would not become shorter or simpler, it would just substitute the current codes with positive and negative numbers, plus an asterisk.
• In practice, experienced ringers know what the groups 'a' to 'm' mean but probably not the numbered suffixed codes, other than that they are not one of the common groups. Would a lead counting scheme fare much better?
• There are now over 5000 methods - almost a quarter of the CCCBR Methods Library that do not have leadhead codes. If a new system is needed, shouldn't it encompass all methods?

[tjbarnes23]

Sorry for the delay in getting to this. Here's a draft response to Peter -- pls let me have any comments.

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your note below, and apologies for taking so long to reply. I've actually used the system you suggest for many years, and have come across other ringers who do as well. It's a useful system for working out which place bell you will become at the next lead end, and for constructing simple touches of spliced on the fly at practice nights.

We've discussed the possibility of replacing the current system with your proposal among the framework team, and there are a few considerations:

• Use of the current codes does go back a long way -- the first use we're aware of is in the 1926 Plain Major Collection, and they've been widely used in ringing literature since.

• In more recent times, these codes have become part of the definition of the MicroSiril libraries, as well as the CC method XML specification and the CC methods library, all of which are widely used in ringing software.

• While it's probably the case that most ringers can't readily interpret the codes with numbers (e.g. c1, d4, etc), we think many experienced ringers are clear on what 'a' to 'm' mean.

Given the above, we're not sure it's feasible to replace the current system. But we will look into the possibility of including the +/- notation as an additional property for methods in the methods library (for those methods with Plain Bob or Grandsire lead heads), and also adding the applicable +/- number alongside each code in the framework's leadhead codes table.

By retaining the letter-based codes and adding the +/- notation, we can avoid needing to use (e.g.) +3* for nth's place methods: the +/- notation can just refer to the equivalent number of PB or G leads, and the letters continue to encode whether the lead end is 2nd's or nth's.

Regards
Tim

[tjbarnes23]

Graham: "Most ringers would not be able to recite the leadheads of Plain Bob, so an index into them would be no help."

The use of the +/- notation doesn't rely on being able to recite the leadheads of PB. Nearly everyone knows that the place bells for PB come in the order 2, 4, 6, 8, 7, 5, 3. This order is defined as +1. If a method has (say) a -3 place bell order, if you're currently 7th's place bell, you therefore know you'll become 4th's place bell at the next lead end (i.e. 3 steps to the left in the PB order). This is valuable information when ringing spliced, even without knowing the PB leadheads.

[GACJ]

That response looks good to me.

[tjbarnes23]

Ok, sent to Peter.

[GACJ]

Reply from Peter Blight 29/03/2019:

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your email. As I said, I don't claim any great originality
for the +/- scheme so I am not surprised that you and others use it. But
I am keen to avoid the unnecessary mystification of the present letter
(and letter/number) codes. The letters were originally designed to apply
up to Major and Caters, and the decision to expand them to higher
numbers, by adding numbers to the letters, seems to me to have been very
inelegant, regardless of how long these codes have been in use.

I appreciate that removal of the present codes from the libraries would
cause problems for existing ringing software, at least in the short
term, so your proposal to add the +/- notation seems to be a good
compromise. However, if that is to adopted, I really do not understand
the logic of omitting the * for groups with 1n lead ends. That would
result in, for example, +1 being the equivalent of both a and g, and
that would introduce another avoidable mystification.

Please reconsider this - the equivalent of g should be +1* not +1. My
aim is to make the lead head codes easy to understand for everyone.

Regards,

Peter

[tjbarnes23]

The problem with +1* is that * usually indicates there's a corresponding footnote to refer to. If people see (e.g.) +1, +3, -4, +2*, +1, it looks as though they'll find something additional below for +2.

If we're going to follow Peter's request, I'd prefer to use something like +2n, where n means nth's place. Luckily, n isn't a letter that's used in the existing leadhead codes. Any thoughts on using n instead of *, or whether we should push back on this and keep the +/- notation purely for the equivalent number of PB / G leads?

[EmBeeDee]

I like your "n" idea, Tim.

…

On 30/03/2019 01:31, Tim Barnes wrote: The problem with +1* is that * usually indicates there's a corresponding footnote to refer to. If people see (e.g.) +1, +3, -4, +2*, +1, it looks as though they'll find something additional below for +2. If we're going to follow Peter's request, I'd prefer to use something like +2n, where n means nth's place. Luckily, n isn't a letter that's used in the existing leadhead codes. Any thoughts on using n instead of *, or whether we should push back on this and keep the +/- notation purely for the equivalent number of PB / G leads? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEbrw5c6JJOVwtm4W9_VkR5EwoE1eRGaks5vbr5sgaJpZM4bfqQX>.

[tjbarnes23]

I realized I didn't reply to Peter's follow-up note, so reopening this issue. Will draft something tomorrow, proposing we go with +2n, etc, instead of +2*.
Graham -- do you have any approximate timeframe in mind for adding this as an additional property for methods with PB / G leadheads, or shall I be non-committal, noting there is already a lot to get done to support the framework?

[tjbarnes23]

The following now sent to Peter:

Hi Peter,

First of all, apologies (again) for the lengthy delay in replying -- an oversight on my part.

We discussed your proposed +1* notation, and what gave us pause is that an * is often used to denote that a reader should look for a footnote that has additional information. E.g. if the following were used:

Cambridge	+2
Superlative	+2
Bristol		-1*
London		-1

the reader might expect a footnote giving further info on Bristol. But we take your point about wanting something that could be a complete replacement for the current system. Therefore, how about n instead of *? This would be consistent with methods being said to have a 1n leadend change, and n is also not used in the current leadhead code system. I.e.:

Cambridge	+2
Superlative	+2
Bristol		-1n
London		-1

Regards
Tim