[Callers] Triplet Times Through?

[Don Veino via Callers]

Circling around to post back the results, just in case the Doodle poll ever
goes away... thanks for all the responses!

We had 15 participants in the poll, with the following results.

Times
Through    Count
-------    -----
6        3
9        14
12        5

Of those 15 responses, 7 included 2 or more selections for Times Through.
In addition to Michael's comment in the thread below, the Doodle included
one from Alan Winston:

"12 if they're really enjoying it and especially if I only have six dancers
and have to think of something else afterward - let's keep the dance to
instruction ratio high. Most typically 9, because it's a sufficient hassle
to get break up your room into triplets that you want to earn that time
back. Six if you have strong dancers who will get bored."

Thanks again,
Don


On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Michael Barraclough <
michael at michaelbarraclough.com> wrote:

> I believe that the "traditional" method is 3 times fully prompted, 3 times
> partially prompted and 3 times with no prompt.
> --
> Michael Barraclough
> michael at michaelbarraclough.com
> www.michaelbarraclough.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From*: Don Veino via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> <Don%20Veino%20via%20Callers%20%3ccallers at lists.sharedweight.net%3e>>
> Reply-to: Don Veino <sharedweight_net at veino.com>
> *To*: Caller's discussion list <callers at sharedweight.net
> <Caller's%20discussion%20list%20%3ccallers at sharedweight.net%3e>>
> *Subject*: [Callers] Triplet Times Through?
> *Date*: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:49:16 -0400
>
> I've been adding Triplets into my programs in certain situations and have
> given some thought about the duration to run them. I'm curious what others
> have determined - how many times through do *you* run a Triplet? Let's see
> if we can get a consensus value via a simple poll:
>
>
> http://doodle.com/poll/yz9ubdr5e7fs4tuu
>
>
> It would be helpful to me if you'd focus quantitative responses through
> the poll.
>
> Discussion or qualitative responses which inform your poll input are
> welcome here in this thread.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Don
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing listCallers at lists.sharedweight.nethttp://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20160508/eb53e4d8/attachment.htm>