Topic: [BPIP] Bitcointalk Public Information Project [Back in Action] - page 31. (Read 21771 times)

I think that a personal color scheme of earned merit in each BPIP profile can be useful, because it would allow to see instantly in which sections users got the most amount of merit (Bitcoin, Economy, Altcoins, Local, Other, Deleted).

For example, this is what the Bitcointalk global distribution of ~673.000 merit looks like in color diagram.




And this is the color chart of earned merit for Satoshi Nakamoto



All data from 24.01.2018 to 22.05.2020 and obtained from the Merit Dashboard.

Hi Guys, just a quick question:

What's causing my "Most Trusted" rank to slowly climb, even thought my actual score hasn't changed?



I'm sharing a value of "70" with many others, yet I seem to be climbing to the top of these other "70's" - On the 25th of April, my score was 70 and the rank was 244 (see this link).  And on the 13^th of May it was 70/233

Thanks.

Suchmoon & ibminer, have you ever considered translating BPIP in other languages? If you think this is feasible, let me know. I can help you with the translation in Romanian.

Now that you made it available in txt format - it might be feasible. I can't give you an ETA though, so far the list of TODOs is only getting longer.

Just bringing this suggestion here:
Any chance you can add old seclog data to BPIP? I made a very long list, but it's much more convenient if you can add it to BPIP. It's still incomplete, but includes older data than you have now.

Right now, on the most recognized page, the top seven profile are showing "Just Now..." as their last parsed.   You've obviously improved the parsing algorithm. 

Respect is a two way street.

I've actually planned on doing a badge on the profile page already after some of the posts from asche earlier in the thread, assuming suchmoon doesn't have any issues with it. I don't think it this would mean the main page has to change, we already have a 'most posts' badge on the profile page which isn't on the main page... we're not calling it MATRP, so I don't think we'd have to alter the 'MATR', just might end up making the badge area of the profile page a little more cluttered.

We could also find a way to distinguish the MATR badges on the profile page as well with a different style badge, and maybe have a sort of secondary badge for other statistics that are not part of the main page, like Most Posts and Most Earned Merit.. (just thinking out loud)

As for the main page, the wording at least will be cleared up in the next release, actually already has on the development site... there are some smaller things, and some larger things, in the works.

All we need is just a little patience. 

As for the rest of these posts, I'm only getting clips here and there (in quotes) of what Timelord2067 is saying these days and I'm not reading through his nonsense anymore.

I unfortunately had to add a 2nd entry to my ignore list this past week. Only 2 users to ever make the ignore list since 2013.. I clearly don't like ignoring people, but this dude is consistently repeating shit already addressed and seems to just be mainly trying to start trouble, and I don't have time for that.
The things, he says, his purple prose just give him away, the things, he says... he's unbelievable. 

If anyone I respect wants to decipher his lunacy and needs me to address anything specific, which hasn't already been addressed, please let me know.

TAMER?

Just a suggestion (because you asked) had you addressed logfiles then I would have understood your intention.

And I'm correcting and supplementing your answer. I hope that's ok.

logfiles was the one asking the questions, I was answering their enquiries.


I must have nodded off when that poll was announced here... It was announced here - yes?


That shit was started in this thread because I made a suggestion - *just* a suggestion.  I'm the one with the mill-stone around their neck yet I'm the one who's ignoring both of you and have moved on.  Can you?

Ownership of the site changed in December. You can see that in the OP of this thread. There was a discrepancy between badges, front page rank tables, reports, and profile pages, which we attempted to fix the best we could.


And they're titled differently and there is a question mark icon that you can hover on and you'll get an explanation and there are links to corresponding reports. I don't see how we can make this any clearer.

The goal was to make MATR (between badges, front page, and profile page) consistent and that's how it is now. The only question is whether M in MATR should be earned or total merit. ibminer had a poll about airdropped merit. Results were not overwhelming either way so I believe it's fine to leave it as is for now. If we find a way to fit another badge in and call it MEATR... MEART... MATER... - we'll consider it.


Please leave this shit out of this thread.

Hi @logfiles, I can actually correct a misconception that keeps reoccurring and the silence from suchmoon and ibminer on suggestions on how to correct their error tells me that they don't want to listen to other people's suggestions. - ok, I withdraw that remark - perhaps they just don't know how to fix it?

If you look at this page: https://archive.vn/mdxSv

You will see my rankings are as follows:



If you look down the left hand side you can see the tables for MATR and MERIT INFORMATION and can see my merit values on the 3^rd of February 2020 were as follows:



Notice at this point in January/February 2020 both the MATR Merit Score and the Merit Information RANK are the same value: 284

In the weeks that followed, ownership of the website changed hands ( @Vod etc can clarify when exactly that occurred ) and a new, previously unseen rank of MOST MERITED was introduced.

The URL https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=earnedmerited was changed to https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=earnedmerit and although it is the ranking system that is used in the three part calculation along with MOST ACTIVE and MOST TRUSTED, what you now see is the MOST MERITED factoring in the so-called air-dropped initial merits (in my case 1,000 merits) on the user profile page which makes it look my merits have jumped up to what they are today:



My Rank of MOST POSTS has jumped from 366^th place to 299^th place, that much is true. However, if you go down the left hand side again you'll see the RANK for "merit" on the two lines are now different:



In January/February 2020 my Merit Score was hovering around 284. Today, the 16^th of May 2020, my Earned Merit Score (what overall RANK is calculated on) is 281.  No real change.  A side discussion on the fact that two (or two hundred and twenty-nine) people can have the same score but have two (or two hundred and twenty-nine) different RANKS (as well as my asking them to clarify how they rank such equal scores disproportionality) is another issue S&I aren't responding to. (As is another suggestion of mine in opening up the RANKS across the board to the first ten thousand ranks)


As I've said in the post @suchmoon references, time and again people will continue to repeatedly ask why their scores don't marry up with the rank and then just a few days later, you came on to ask the same question.


That's a good question.  They did, but called it MOST MERITED, then they created a new rank called EARNED MERIT which is the same thing.

IIRC --> @Vod had hinted at other badges the only one I could recall him mentioning was a donation to the BPIP site badge (<-- IIRC).  There would be no difficulties (I wouldn't have thought) with BOTH the Most Merited AND the Earned Merit badges being displayed side-by-side (in that order) on the ranking page.  It would certainly cut down on the repeated questions about the error in showing a rank of e.g. 117 but using a calculation of 281 which @ibminer slapped me with distrust for simply asking that question.



I now distrust ibminer because after he distrust me he accused me [1a], [1b] of placing a virus in my link to a Google Spread Sheet and now Trolls me when he does respond to my posts.  (Not very professional for someone in what is supposed to be a serious thread)

Another work-around if they don't want to show MOST MERITED and EARNED MERIT side-by-side would be when a mouse hovers over the MOST MERITED shield it swivels around to show the EARNED MERIT shield in its place.  At a glance, you can see your overall merits, and peek at the earned merits.

I doubt either S or I will respond, all we can do is tally up the number of times they get asked the exact same question.

Thanks for reading.

Read the post preceding yours and you'll see that it's not easy to come up with a solution that pleases everyone. If we do something based on earned merits it may be in addition to (not instead of) total merits but for now it will likely stay as it is.

Hi @ibminer @suchmoon I think there needs some improvement on the most merited ranking and badge. As of now the website is using the ranking of most merited based on Earned plus Airdropped Merits. So we are having even members who earned only 3 Merits since the Merit system was implemented over 2 years ago and are still in the top 1000 positions just because they have 1000 airdropped merits like this profile yet a person who has been active and earned 900 Merits from 0 doesn't even have the badge.

Why don't we start giving members badges based on "Most Earned Merits" instead of Most Merited?

Part 2 (message truncated due to exceeding the 64,000 characters limit)


These 200 UID's have received merits from me that were a part of the inital gift from @theymos.

If you're going to disqualify counting the 1,000 merits then you have to remove the corresponding ~200 sent merits - and the merits that were triggered by those merits being sent out... and the merits that were triggered by those merits being received.

Some of you reading this received dozens (and even scores) of merits from others when the meriting system began, so you'll have to have those merit scores cancelled and lower your ranks accordingly...

---

---

...That is if you want to persist in claiming the initial (in my case) 1,000 merits received and about first 200 merits sent don't count. 

Yes, as LoyceV mentioned, the 1st entry on each flag is seen as an entry, but isn't technically a change. I'll get that 'change' number adjusted on the flag page in the next update.



This seems to be right around the time the issue happened, but not quite, parser seemed to stop on the 24th for some reason, it was attempting to parse a few days after that but once it was past 2 days, the query wasn't returning anything. I didn't realize it and get it going again until the 29th, which is why there were a bunch of flags "created" on the 29th when the parser finally captured them (flags 1691 - 1763).

Query should be OK now though. It was checking the prior 2 days based on the current date, now it will check the past 2 days based on the last creation date of the most recent flag parsed. Previously, if there are no flags returned, it wouldn't attempt parsing. So now if days go by without any new flags, or the parser stops parsing them for some reason, it should just keep re-parsing based on the most recent flags date.

The last time this happened was on April 22. I've checked my data from slightly less than 3 months:
I didn't expect this many days without new Flags being created.

The first entry is not a "change".