Topic: [BPIP] Bitcointalk Public Information Project [Back in Action] - page 16. (Read 21754 times)

No idea - my questions to the BPIP get mostly toxic responses at the best of times, so perhaps you might have better luck gleaning information from them.  All I can do is continue to call things as I see them.

Warts and all.

Those actions don't show in modlog.

How would BPIP even know those posts were deleted?

Posts that have been deleted by a user (such as yourself in your self-moderated threads) haven't been counted for a while now.

When Lauda went on a deletion spree a while ago, those deleted posts were counted.  I just took it that there had been a change of opinion as to what did and did not count as relevant for post counts.

---

---

Similarly, threads that are deleted show as the post having been deleted, but also don't count towards the BPIP tally of deleted posts (as evidenced by what has been occurring recently).

I just refreshed the profile and now it shows 12 deleted posts. 6 deleted posts are still missing.


BPIP

Bug: I've noticed before that BPIP's deleted post count is off, and stumbled upon a clear example now. User ebi_javanmard has 18 deleted posts on modlog (which I think is from the past week), but BPIP shows only 4 posts deleted by moderators.

This forum is powered by the SMF platform and has some stats available to anyone using this Forum (admittedly some of the information has been disabled)

If you head over to the stats page [ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=stats ] you should then be able to make comparisons between the three sites mentioned.

Regards,

It would be cool to compare the two BPIP and ninjastic.space at least that would give a better look on who is active and not. I am guessing both will be inflated because of account farmers.

That's really a subjective question given the number of farmed accounts that are created, cultivated put on ice or revived either for sale, or, to boost the UID's post count.

You'd be better off looking at the number of daily/weekly/etc posts over at https://ninjastic.space/ that complements the work being done by the BPIP team.

Do you guys track / have a link for active profiles? I would like to look at it on a 6 months/ yearly basis and see how many members we are losing.

It's the top 10

Good day,

I just realized to be able to make somebody your merit fan, you need to receive at least 2 merits.
Or it just lists the top 10?


Also, Copyright is set 2016-2020, so me taking a screenshot today does not violate it correct?
 

---

humor got me a ninja merit and an ibmerit!

Understanding code doesn't get you on a recommended list at Firefox. Understanding code would allow someone to verify the safety of the extension's source and not lose sleep over a 'warning' and/or 'suggestion' not to use the extension.. but because the previous post labelled this a warning/suggestion, I'd assume it should still offer a way to allow the extension to install.

If it is not letting you install the extension at all, then coding experience isn't going to really help this. The only way to install it will be if Firefox adds BPIP to their list... or use another browser.

I'd be surprised if the Tor browser app isn't letting the extension install at all (although may still give a warning), as I had thought they used an older base version of firefox, but I haven't tested the Tor *app* directly myself on an android device (and I don't currently have an android device to test!..).

Anyhow, any further discussion relating directly to the extension should probably be moved over to the BPIP extension thread!

That might be true for those who are fortunate to have a background in that field, but for the rest of us, Firefox for Android just will not let you install the BPIP on their browser app.

The PC version of Firefox will, the app no.

Same goes for the Tor browser PC yes, app no.

This is likely related to the warning that suchmoon had posted about on the BPIP extension thread, which it seems like firefox is doing for all extensions that are not officially listed on their "recommended" plugins list. Not sure if it is a different warning you are receiving or not, but I'm sure it is likely following the same idea of not being on an official list deemed OK by Firefox.

Good news is, for anyone tech-savvy, extensions are open-source.. so anyone can verify the safety of the code independently, or potentially hire someone to screen it for you.. if you are overly worried about it.

I use it on a separate browser, like Firefox Night. No issues till now.

I had tried to install BPIP for firebox on my Android phone but it gave me a warning and suggested me not to install this.

Not sure.. I'm sure we have bots scraping pages, but I'm not sure how many or how aggressive they may be. I'm guessing our hosting provider is doing some level of filtering on their end, but again I'm not sure how involved it is or whether suchmoon does any monitoring of these types of things on his end, GUI access may have a few more options to monitor this type of thing more effectively. I could probably try digging through long text-based log files and trying to analyze them, but who has time for that?? 

At the risk of being slightly off-topic: Does BPIP also get visited by agressive scraping bots? Since yesterday, I've banned about 15,000 IP addresses from accessing loyce.club because they were scraping the same data directory with many downloads per second. The fact that they use so many IP addresses makes it annoying to deal with and a very agressive way to collect data.
Open IP tracker shows the IPs come from all over the world and are owned by different organisations.

Your answer has confused my two separate questions; treating them as one and the same. 

But, thank-you for at least in part attempting to answer the second question as it in part answers questions put to you more than twelve months ago by others, not just myself.

Instead of adding anything, switching the sorting to the 'id' itself seemed to be the best solution. Assuming everything is as it should be, I believe this should always still coincide with the timestamp, but it keeps the /TrustLog page less jumpy. It was a simple switch, so I've made this modification live as well. Might have to switch it back if I did something stupid.. but it seems more stable now. 

---

Regardless of what is displayed on the site, because ranks are based on calculations, these calculations could be applied to any user.. but it does require more resources, and isn't really necessary to run the calculations on everyone for the website. Only the top 1,000 are currently displayed/calculated on the website, but there are intentions on increasing this to maybe 10,000 once we can do it across the board. The extension specifically calculates the recognition values/ranks past 1,000 and lists that as the BPIP rank.


The "Most Recognized" rank in your example does not intentionally do any sorting based on the registration date. The only calculation done is listed at the top of the most recognized page.

However, I'm guessing because SQL processes the tables with profile ID's in order, the lower/older userIDs will probably get processed first, which would get them ranked first.

It's not intentional, but as it stands now, I don't see a huge issue with this personally. It could be something adjustable in the future but I'm not sure it is a huge issue at this point.