Topic: Announcing BPIP - The Bitcointalk Public Information Project! - page 7. (Read 33817 times)

Just to note: the manual parsing of accounts it's not working, the list with the top merited posts for the past 24 hours is empty and the top merited members list is not updated for quite some time now.

P.S. I manually refresh the profiles with wrong trust score in the 1000 most trusted list but it's endless work...

I suggest to prioritize parsing of those accounts who have trust ≠0, so the Turst score list will get back to normal.
I see those who have now 10 trust on the bottom of the top 1000 will be parsed in 80 days.

Hello @Vod,

I was able to find an weird bug. My total merit is 736 in bitcointalk, and 735 in BPIP. I just parsed it, and my account is updated. Then I decided to compare my both merit recent transactions in BPIP and bitcointalk. I found the missing merit.

It is from a deleted post, that I received from OgNasty.



For some reason, this merited deleted post was not counted by bpip. Maybe it was deleted before bpip counted it? Other users may be affected by this as well. Maybe merit should be counted from another source, directly from user profile instead of topics?

New trust changes are favoring recognition of 0 trust users, like me. My recognition was non existent and now I am 316th =D

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45081128


For the trust, there is this log for DT1 changes: https://bpip.org/r/dt1changes.aspx

As for the user information, then you just type the username or user ID on the top and hit enter and you'll get all the necessary information's.



It's because of the recent trust system changes, which has apparently not been implemented on BPIP yet. If you check any user profile, you'll notice that the received trust is set always set 0.

What is Recognition?. How it is calculated?

Are there anyone tracking Merit and Trust abusers? If there is a list, can you point me to that?

Are you scraping daily merits with user information? Is it available for public view?

I realize that recent trust changes are causing a bit of havoc, but I just noticed that my "Recognition" had plummeted by about 150 places.
OMG 
Having a quick look, my received trust reads zero not +6 as I think it should. Is that why? Why is that?
Thanks for your efforts, it's a good resource.

Well that was more painful than I expected.

The javascript I had done basically just executed a "click" on the search button, it really should have worked in firefox... and firefox was executing the "click" but it didn't seem to do anything. I tried a jquery variation and traditional javascript but nothing seemed to make all browsers happy. I think it was more something related to the "scriptmanager" that asp.net loads and how the search button was setup to do its postback. Long story short, I came across asp.net's "DefaultButton" property which can be used within a panel... this new method seems to be working across all browsers!  

Yes, using Firefox. It seems to be working fine on Edge too (I know, no one uses that).

ibminer

I'm using Firefox and have the same enter/refresh error.

Out of curiosity, are you using firefox?  I've done most of my testing via Chrome/Safari (which {enter} appears to be working for). But after seeing your post, I tested firefox, which is just refreshing the page and apparently doesn't like my javascript.   - I'll look into this.

I agree with the userid search as well. There may be use in having a partial userID search (to search accounts created around the same time as a particular userid) but as of now it doesn't do a partial userid search, so I think it makes sense to redirect it directly to the profile.

It's hard to tell now but from my understanding, It's based on the trust of the members you dealt with. You have sent 4 feedbacks. 2 were done with trusted members (no risk) while the two others were done with negative and neutral members (there is a risk).

@Vod, I've seen that you implemented the ability to search for users, it's a good feature but since UID's are unique, there is no reason to give the "possible" profiles you're looking for after typing someone's user ID. From a UX perspective, I believe that after typing 375981 (my UID) instead of being redirected to:

It should take you directly to the profile:

Also, I have noticed that while typing a user name or ID, hitting {enter} doesn't run the search query. It just refreshes the page.

Hey Vod, I was taking a look at my profile and found something weird.


I sent 4 feedbacks (that´s right) but no BTC was risked any time. And what does 50% mean?

Maybe this sentence should be removed if no BTC was risked in the trust feedback?

That will be nice. Looking forward to when activity are updated instantly as one perform

Oh man, we need to have one thread for all the BPIP problems, otherwise it's getting messy. Now I have to bookmark all those threads to keep an eye of them so I won't double report something, or just track changes...

This has been reported.  Vod should be fixing before the next update.

I am aware of this project but I did not know that you created this, this is huge and a big help to the community, it makes things easy to all members to track all the information about their account in Bitcointalk, I don't know but this is the only forum I know that has something like this.

I personally would discount the merit rankings *unless* it was how many instances merit was given by others.

Those on the merit-go-round just give each-other merits for slagging off at whomever is that day's punching bag, or, those that gave out 50 merits on day one then promptly ran out of merits skew the results. So, the higher up the merit list the less accurate to values really are.

Besides, all seeded merits scores when merits were introduced would have to be deducted if the current values were employed.

Just my two satoshi's - thanks for reading.

Something weird is happening with the DT1 Change Log.

Suddenly all that were removed from DT1 looks like are delisted from the trust lists of all the other DT members, which is false.
Example with DarkStar_, I still have it in my trust list.


I guess it's difficult to filter those accounts who were removed by theymos' script and therefor BPIP assumes that we have removed them from our lists.

Thanks for the explanation of the updating - I'm still trying to figure out how to utilize this tool for the Known Alts thread (I see others are referencing the site)

I was in a group of writers a while ago that had a ranking system for the various figures, how many contributions, how many pages posted etc.  One person came up with a formula (will have to dig it out to reference it) but it was something like

square (number of ranks) root of ( 1/rank1 X 1/rank2 X 1/rank3 etc ) It's been over a decade since I last had a look at that formula so I'll have to hunt it out and pass it on to you for consideration.

It did seem to work with varied ranks.

---

*edit* May have been

square (number of ranks) root of ( 1/( 1/rank1 X 1/rank2 X 1/rank3 etc ))

*second edit*

Did some calculations during my break at work today, am trying to recall a formula I saw more than 20 years ago and haven't referenced in over a decade/dozen years...


This gets you an accurate number - but I hasten to point out that it isn't the same number as when you add the values together and then do an average, you get a different result.  (not sure where the inverse came into it - again I'll have to hunt out paperwork from 20 years ago, can't do a search all, just the old fashioned read each page until I find what I'm looking for method)

The same goes for in statistics where you divide (or square root) by a number less one where one number is wildly out compared with the rest.

eg, I have four values above 1,000 as does Vod

LoyceV has all five values above 1,000 and yet another xtraelv has just three values above 1,000 so taking one out still leaves one value above 1,000 which drags his score down considerably.  For a sample group of a quarter of a million UID's, you would have to use all five values bearing in mind some people would apear to drop down but that is only because their score is deficient in some areas.

---

To save confusion perhaps a generic shield with

>1K
>5k or
>10K

be added - so that anyone down the totem poll doesn't start asking the repetitive question of why someone with three shields is lower (or higher) down/up the ranks than someone with four or five shields.

(And I just recalled the "Donation" Shield was the extra Shield I was counting in my earlier question)