[BPIP] Bitcointalk Public Information Project [Back in Action] - page 21.

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: ibminer on November 05, 2020, 09:13:11 AM

Thanks, the merit information does show in the merit count of the profiles, and the s/merit log shows the merit transactions.. but under the counts it is indeed saying 'has not earned any merit'. Looks like a bug in the stored procedure.. should be able to fix later today/tomorrow.

I have fixed it. I had noticed it before with another profile that had a lot of received merits but didn't send anything.

Csmiami

copper member

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1325

I'm sometimes known as "miniadmin"

Quote from: ibminer on November 05, 2020, 09:13:11 AM

---

Yep, that's what I meant... Sorry for not being able to provide any screenshot but couldn't add any at the moment

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

Quote from: Csmiami on November 05, 2020, 07:15:38 AM

Thanks, the merit information does show in the merit count of the profiles, and the s/merit log shows the merit transactions.. but under the counts it is indeed saying 'has not earned any merit'. Looks like a bug in the stored procedure.. should be able to fix later today/tomorrow.

Update:

Quote from: suchmoon on November 05, 2020, 09:30:33 AM

I have fixed it. I had noticed it before with another profile that had a lot of received merits but didn't send anything.

Thank you!

Csmiami

copper member

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1325

I'm sometimes known as "miniadmin"

Sorry if this has been brought up before; I tried to check every previous report but something may have slipped.

Anyway; I was checking one profile to see if seclog showed any "waking up" (it didn't), but while doing so, I saw that the user had received one (1) merit in total, it was displayed in his "merit fans", but merit information showed that he had not received any merits. I tried refreshing the profile and nothing changed; so I've tried some more random profiles with 1 merit received and this happens every time. This does not happen only with profiles with 1 merit

Profile I checked

Random profile 1 merit
Random profile 2 merits

I don't know whether this is a general thing, a bug, or a profile case error, but I felt like it needed to be reported. Once again, sorry if this had already been brought up

Timelord2067

legendary

Activity: 3696

Merit: 2219

💲🏎️💨🚓

Quote from: LoyceV on November 04, 2020, 12:27:41 PM

What happened to theymos in Strongest DT1 Position? He should be at DT1 strength (51), but he's shown as (0).

I see they are using a kind-of equal ranking for users who have the same scores - will this be applied across the board to other equal ranked members in the MATR score cards?

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: suchmoon on November 02, 2020, 01:00:47 PM

Slacker...

Lol

Serious answer: Maybe BPIP uses the actual post time, I use my scrape time.

What happened to theymos in Strongest DT1 Position? He should be at DT1 strength (51), but he's shown as (0).

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: hosseinimr93 on November 02, 2020, 12:45:31 PM

According to Loyce.club, GazetaBitcoin made the first post after waking up on October 18, 2019, 09:21:35 (CEST) which is 8:21:35 (GMT).

Actually it's 7:21:35 in GMT/UTC. So I think there is no issue with time zones or timestamps here, everything works as expected. BPIP uses UTC for timestamps, which is also forum's default time.

Quote from: hosseinimr93 on November 02, 2020, 12:45:31 PM

Loyce.club parsed that post 4 seconds later than BPIP.

Slacker...

hosseinimr93

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 5213

Quote from: ibminer on November 02, 2020, 12:20:31 PM

^ why this last date is recorded as before your actual post date, I'm not 100% sure... maybe some sort of timezone issue/difference that happened on the recording of this entry?
I'd guess BPIP actually noticed/parsed the post at 8:21:31 AM that day, not 7:21:31 AM.

The first post made by GazetaBitcoin after he woke up isn't the post you see in his post history.
GazetaBitcoin had made a post which isn't now in his post history.

According to Loyce.club, GazetaBitcoin made the first post after waking up on October 18, 2019, 09:21:35 (CEST) which is 8:21:35 (GMT).
Loyce.club parsed that post 4 seconds later than BPIP.

GazetaBitcoin

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 6524

Fully-fledged Merit Cycler|Spambuster'23|Pie Baker

Quote from: ibminer on November 02, 2020, 12:20:31 PM

So, technically, I'd interpret this as:

You logged in to your account on 10/17/2019 8:19:32 AM (based on seclog)
You made a post on 10/18/2019 8:16:35 AM (based on the forum's info)
BPIP parsed/captured the post on 10/18/2019 7:21:31 AM (based on BPIP's DB)

^ why this last date is recorded as before your actual post date, I'm not 100% sure... maybe some sort of timezone issue/difference that happened on the recording of this entry?
I'd guess BPIP actually noticed/parsed the post at 8:21:31 AM that day, not 7:21:31 AM.

Yes, this is a bit curious... maybe BPIP's time wasn't synched with forum's time... Otherwise I can't see how the website could parse my post at 7.21 AM if the post was created at 8.16 AM (unless Foxpup inserted some time travelling software in the site's code back then

). Anyway, now I understood the difference between the Security/Moderator Log and Meta Log. Thank you for the thorough explanation.

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

Quote from: hosseinimr93 on November 02, 2020, 04:45:32 AM

Quote from: GazetaBitcoin on November 02, 2020, 12:51:35 AM

Is this normal?

I think it's normal.
The information shown in Security/Moderator Log is collected from forum's seclog. That's the time you logged in to your account after a long time.
The information shown in Meta Log is based on the time you made a post after a long time.

You logged in to your account on 10/17/2019 8:19:32 AM
You made a post on 10/18/2019 7:21:31 AM

Sec/mod log does pull the date from the forum's seclog.
However, the meta log of BPIP is essentially telling you the date that BPIP noticed the change and parsed the post. It doesn't use the date of that post itself, just the date that it parsed it and noticed the change, which should normally be within seconds/minutes of the actual change.. assuming parsers are running efficiently.

So, technically, I'd interpret this as:

You logged in to your account on 10/17/2019 8:19:32 AM (based on seclog)
You made a post on 10/18/2019 8:16:35 AM (based on the forum's info)
BPIP parsed/captured the post on 10/18/2019 7:21:31 AM (based on BPIP's DB)

^ why this last date is recorded as before your actual post date, I'm not 100% sure... maybe some sort of timezone issue/difference that happened on the recording of this entry?
I'd guess BPIP actually noticed/parsed the post at 8:21:31 AM that day, not 7:21:31 AM.

hosseinimr93

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 5213

Quote from: GazetaBitcoin on November 02, 2020, 12:51:35 AM

Is this normal?

I think it's normal.
The information shown in Security/Moderator Log is collected from forum's seclog. That's the time you logged in to your account after a long time.
The information shown in Meta Log is based on the time you made a post after a long time.

You logged in to your account on 10/17/2019 8:19:32 AM
You made a post on 10/18/2019 7:21:31 AM

GazetaBitcoin

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 6524

Fully-fledged Merit Cycler|Spambuster'23|Pie Baker

I just spotted another inconsistency on the website, regarding users which woke up after being offline for a while, such as I am. When you search for such profile on the site, the date of waking up is stated twice on the profile page, but with different values (at the Security/Moderator Log and Meta Log sections).

In this case, you can see in the upper part of the picture, at Security/Moderator Log, that the profile woke up on October 17th, 2019 at 8.19 AM. In the lower part of the picture, at Meta Log, the wake up date is October 18th, 2019, at 7.21 AM.

Is this normal?

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

Quote from: LoyceV on October 31, 2020, 04:23:40 AM

^ The last part is apparently due to the way my search through the file is being done, which apparently acts more like a wildcard search. It needs to be switched to reading it line by line. Currently it is finding '40565' because of '540565' being in the user_ids.txt, just needs to be corrected on our end.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: suchmoon on October 23, 2020, 10:51:12 AM

The website was also showing the "DT1" label next to your name and on your profile etc. The bug is limited just to the DT change log, which says "no longer selected". Processing of that log is already quite slow so I'm reluctant to make any changes to try to fix this as it's such a rare issue.

I noticed another side-effect: Lauda reached DT2 again, but no change was mentioned in DT Change Log. This change happened because Blacknavy wiped his Trust list, which was only shown as "Blacknavy DT1 is no longer selected into DT1" in the DT Change Log.
It's a pity the Change Log overlooks toggling DT2-members this way.

I'm taking this here:

Quote from: LoyceV on November 01, 2020, 03:24:57 AM

Quote from: Timelord2067 on October 31, 2020, 05:54:00 PM

Does MajorMiner have their own DT trust list?

No, and he's never had one either.

Quote

BPIP seems to think they do https://bpip.org/Profile?id=40565 but none is found on the link here: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-10-31_Sat_04.09h/40565.html

loyce.club/trust/latesttrustlist.txt is my complete list of latest Trust lists for each user, but BPIP doesn't use it (yet).

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: Csmiami on October 30, 2020, 04:21:26 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on October 30, 2020, 03:38:12 PM

I thought about scraping the staked address thread but there are some challenges, particularly if we want to verify signed messages.

Taking only the ones that have already been verified by other forum users?

That's probably even more complicated... I think a somewhat-plausible solution would be to check how many addresses a user has posted in the staking thread, if it's only one - assume that's the one we need, otherwise review manually. Or perhaps automatically take the last one if it's 2-3 total, and manually review if it's more than that. Definitely don't want to process every address manually.

Csmiami

copper member

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1325

I'm sometimes known as "miniadmin"

Quote from: suchmoon on October 30, 2020, 03:38:12 PM

I thought about scraping the staked address thread but there are some challenges, particularly if we want to verify signed messages.

Taking only the ones that have already been verified by other forum users?

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: Csmiami on October 30, 2020, 02:31:03 PM

This may sound idiotic or may have been suggested earlier some day; but to add some know (or at least one) Bitcoin address to each profile? I'm not talking about addresses a user may have posted over the time, but rather one (or more) addresses that have been staked in a similar way to this. I'm not completely sure how it could be implemented, but I can think of a couple of use cases to have a staked address showed

I thought about scraping the staked address thread but there are some challenges, particularly if we want to verify signed messages.

Csmiami

copper member

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1325

I'm sometimes known as "miniadmin"

This may sound idiotic or may have been suggested earlier some day; but to add some know (or at least one) Bitcoin address to each profile? I'm not talking about addresses a user may have posted over the time, but rather one (or more) addresses that have been staked in a similar way to this. I'm not completely sure how it could be implemented, but I can think of a couple of use cases to have a staked address showed

@Tryninja I ping you too here in case you think it may be a good addition to your site too (or if you finally collaborate, something doable or whatever)

Be safe

GazetaBitcoin

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 6524

Fully-fledged Merit Cycler|Spambuster'23|Pie Baker

Welcome! I'm glad I could help with something

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

Quote from: GazetaBitcoin on October 30, 2020, 10:01:06 AM

They are still present after the latest update. I'm mentioning it as I didn't get any reply from you or suchmoon and I don't know if you missed it or if you considered it too minor.

I apparently missed that one. They are minor typos but I'll definitely get them corrected, thanks.

Topic: [BPIP] Bitcointalk Public Information Project [Back in Action] - page 21. (Read 21770 times)