I keep seeing things ranked improperly, so here is how to do it right.
Imagine that we have six candidates for an exam, and they score as follows. Ranking these candidates is very easy.
| Name | Score | Rank |
| Abel | 90% | 1 |
| Bohr | 80% | 2 |
| Curie | 70% | 3 |
| Dirac | 60% | 4 |
| Einstein | 50% | 5 |
| Feynman | 40% | 6 |
But what if two candidates have the same score? The correct way of ranking is to give both of these candidates the same rank, but then the next rank is one place lower. In the example below, Abel and Bohr both score 90% and are therefore ranked in first place; Curie then remains in third place, rather than being elevated to second.
| Name | Score | Rank |
| Abel | 90% | 1 |
| Bohr | 90% | 1 |
| Curie | 70% | 3 |
| Dirac | 60% | 4 |
| Einstein | 50% | 5 |
| Feynman | 40% | 6 |
This prevents a situation in which we have six participants, but the person with the lowest score is ranked fifth. If more than two participants have the same score, or if this situation occurs more than once, the same rule is applied.
| Name | Score | Rank |
| Abel | 90% | 1 |
| Bohr | 90% | 1 |
| Curie | 90% | 1 |
| Dirac | 60% | 4 |
| Einstein | 60% | 4 |
| Feynman | 40% | 6 |
Mr. Reid, I’ve never seen results listed any other way, but even this “correct” way still bugs me. It stems from that rule about outlines/lists that if you have a “1” you must have a “2”, or if you have a “A”, you must have a “B”. I think even if you have three people with the same score be in first place, that fourth fellow should be listed as second place, not fourth.
If you were ranking scores, I could see where you were coming from. But you’re ranking people, and if three people get the same top score then the next person isn’t the second-best, they’re the fourth-best, because there are three people ahead of them.