Topic: [BPIP] Bitcointalk Public Information Project [Back in Action] - page 33. (Read 19631 times)

I believe I was pretty straightforward with what I was saying... the edits came because you had edited your post sometime before I had finished/posted my reply. Your edit was so you could include 4 archive links which compared you and I, in an effort to archive the fact that we were not equals:

I felt I should put those archive links back into the quote I had done with your post, so you wouldn't label me trying to "cover up" your archives.  
(2nd edit was obviously to state I had added the question marks to the profile page.)

Now you're saying this:
I don't understand your logic.


Mob mentality?... tinfoil hats?.. There are valid reasons to be concerned with Google drive/doc links, it only takes a google search to see some of the more obvious ways Google docs/sheets have been used as attack vectors in fairly hard to detect manners, and could even be used as information collectors (invisible image pixel to collect IPs) which people may not want... so it was a general warning, and I had specifically stated I didn't know anything about your particular document.

As for politeness, the help was appreciated: I had sent you 3 smerit for your post, I said thank you for pointing out a piece of confusion, and then I had in detail replied stating the calculation for recognized was using earned merit, to clear up any confusion. You once again repeated the same confusion ~3 days later -- at the same time making an insinuation that we were manually calculating ranks (not very polite). I made a straightforward reply, and then went out of my way to add the question marks into the profile page to further clear up any confusion.

Are you insinuating suchmoon is not mature now? or is this just a backhanded compliment? .. BTW - neither are very polite.


I'm not sure where you see me being hostile? Maybe my post came off more harsh than I intended, due to other frustrations I've had to deal with (a treasurer of this forum spreading lies about me), so I'll apologize to you for that, but it certainly wasn't a polite thing to see you making an accusation about manually manipulating ranks, especially after I had already explained where your confusion on most recognized was coming from.

I was trying to be helpful with the arrows because it didn't seem like you saw them. Honestly, you really didn't need the arrows, nor to even look at any BPIP page, to know it was using the earned merit rank.. because I had already stated it in this post several days before you posted the same comment about your recognized score.

---

No offense, but no thanks. You're welcome to take a screenshot of a portion of it, and post the image, but we shouldn't really need your spreadsheets when all the numbers are available on BPIP, and the formulas being used are known and clearly visible now.

I think a nice addition to the top activity page would be latest post date. For activity, that's more important than the 'Last Active' date that the page currently displays.

Now that we have established that I am as trustworthy as the rest of you good people who are working collaboratively with me to ensure this project is as good as it can be, perhaps now you would be kind enough to view and review the link in my previous post:

There is nothing to cover up. ibminer added those explanations first on the front page (his screenshot with arrows), later on the profile page, and it can be seen by the timestamps on his post when that was done. Since it's not a critical bug but just a user-friendly improvement it was not a drop-everything-and-fix-it-now type of priority. You bringing it up helped us realize that it might be confusing to some users so we decided to make it clearer. Thank you.

They weren't there at 26 Feb 2020 16:13:37 UTC (just on twelve hours ago) here's proof: https://archive.ph/qZaGs#selection-610.1-627.11

Now suchmoon is covering-up for ibminer

Your help finding bugs is appreciated. There is no bug in recognition ranking calculation and ibminer put a lot of effort in explaining that, both here and on BPIP website. Descriptions are available on the front page and on each profile page - click the circles with question marks.

Have you finished editing your rant?


It may come as a complete shock to you to discover that we are equals.  The creator of BPIP - Vod trusts myself and Vod also trusts you.  This makes us equals. 

This is the proof (I know you're finding this revelation a shock to the system - if you don't believe me, then take the word of LoyceV:

Here: http://loyce.club/trust/ranking/131361.html Vod trusts me - has done for months now.
Here: http://loyce.club/trust/ranking/84866.html Vod trusts you.

And yet you would rather wrap your head in miles of tin foil and employ mob mentality against myself instead of having the courage to accept that yes, I am your equal and engaging me in polite conversation.  I have extended to you that courtesy, you have not reciprocated.

In a rare moment of maturity, suchmoon merited me seven merits for having found a fairly serious bug in the firefox add-on:


and yet you want to ramp up your hostility towards me with each reply when all I have done is reports "glitches" in the system?

I asked which of the over five million BPIP pages contains "question marks" - Instead of answering, you post screen shots with arrows.  Well...?  which of the more than five million pages is that on?

---

Others such as OmegaStarScream have talked about issues with the merit reporting [Archive [1a], [1b]] yet there hasn't been this lashing out that you have attacked me with, so it's just little old me that you are focussing your FUD on.

---

No doubt you will now create a thread about how hard-done-by you have been.

Well done.

Next.

---

BPIP is broken - yet you would rather lash out at those who offer their hand in friendship to help fix it.

min/max is the number of merits, for example all transactions when you received more than 1 merit:

https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?to=guigui371&min=2

---

Thanks for pointing this out, the page should have clearer instructions at the very least.

---

See here: https://bpip.org/support.aspx -> How is the Most Trusted score calculated on the main page?

yay, it works,
Thanks for the explanation.
Thanks

Try using usernames instead of IDs, and date format is US-style month/day/year (e.g. 2/15/2020):

https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?from=suchmoon&to=guigui371&start=2/15/2020

Hello,
may I do a few suggestions about   BPIP ?

when you go  to a BPIP profile, could we get the following information: "merit earned in last 30 days / last 120 days"

The trust color, could we get a legend somewhere?


Also,
this feature :
Located here  : https://bpip.org/reports.aspx

The hyperlink sends to https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx
And there is this explaination :
I guess it would be more user friendly to add a very short blurp saying how you have to  input the data.
Even better (but a lot of work), drop down boxes for dates, and search boxes for users.
I have seen enough of your guys magic to know that for users we have to use the ID (mine is 207818).
But when I try to do  do "from Suchmoon to me " = https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?to=207818&from=234771
I have this message error : And this is the webpage link displayed : https://bpip.org/error.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/smerit.aspx

So, it appears that I don't know how to use it, and  for the dates, I legit have no idea how to do it.

All of the above is probably very low on your priority list, but I guessed you may want to hear about a random joe on his BPIP experience.

Keep the good work. 

Wrong formula == Wrong value.

I don't think it is extremely paranoid if you consider the types of things that can be embedded into these documents, and the type of information one could potentially get from people accessing them.

I didn't create the formula for Most Trusted, but I'm good with the way it's calculated at this point, although there could potentially be room for improvements as we collect more data.

I'm just saying from a subjective point of view, if you fully trust another person, then it might be OK to expose yourself to these types of links.
Otherwise, I'd personally advise against it, no matter where a person is ranked under "Most Trusted".


EDIT: Updated your quote to include your egotistical archive links.

EDIT #2: OK, to further try and clear up any confusion for anyone who hasn't read my posts or visited the front page, these questions marks have been added to the profile page as well.

There is no "question mark" - where are you referring to?


If that's true, why does my "most recognised" continue to show an incorrect value? (as mentioned by me repeatedly?)


Well, that's a bit paranoid isn't it? (be honest now - especially given you are LESS TRUSTED [1a] [1b] than even me [2a] [2b] - according to your own metrics  )

You're using incorrect numbers. Are you trying to create cans of worms?  Just look at the question mark over top of "Most Recognized" and try using the correct numbers (the links are included to the numbers being used).. have you been reading my posts?  

Also should mention, everything is using a formula, there are no "manual calculations".

** I'd also urge others to not click on or use google drive links by anyone, unless you fully trust the member or know what you are doing. Just my opinion, not saying anything in particular about this link, which I have not verified or looked at. This is just a general rule I follow, for good reasons.

I see the merit list has been modified back to mostmerited, however, I'm just wondering if the most recognised is being manually calculated?  On the (1000 -((117+152+278)/3)) I should have a score of 818 not 761.666

iluvbitcoins (1000 -((272+319+54)/3)) = 785 (around where you have me now) not 599.666

even virasog (1000 -((991+953+1001)/3)) = 18.333 not 15.666

---

I can see trying to fix one can of worms has opened up another can in its place.

---

W.I.P.

Am working on something - just for myself to see if I can get the tables etc sorted - I'm using the rank of 1001 where the value is above 1000.

Opinions, questions etc welcome.

W.I.P.

These are complete. Decided to go with question marks instead of a little "i" icons, the questions marks can be hovered or clicked (to stay, so links can be used), might try to change the clicking behavior at some point but they're there!   Had to put the most trusted calculation under the Support page, it was too long for a tooltip.

This should show both 10 and -10. This user gets skipped, because his total earned Merit is 0. Although this is a bug, I don't think it's worth the time to fix it.

I didn't realize this until now: I'd beat theymos

Thanks for providing this list - it certainly gives a different window into just how many users have received merits and their distribution.  I hadn't considered X unique users from Y transactions. (and it shows some users such as romanornr with highly centralised merits given and received)

---

*IF* we were to look at unique users, then my rank would be about 100 higher than this list. (about 175)

*IF* we were to look at transactions, then my position would drop some thirty places into the 310's

---

On the most merited, factoring in previously gifted merits I am at 117 ranking and on the scale of (M/A/T/R) (Earned merit) the previous posts on this page seem to be favouring I am about 287.

So, that's four different values of merit.  I supposed the best I can hope for is the third places "earned merit" over fourth placed number of transactions.

Very nice, but also this at the bottom >

and his merit history: http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2536607.html

BTW BPIP thinks it's only one trasaction and I can't find the second one (can it be the -10 sent by theymos).>
https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?id=2536607

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/gwsukabokepjepang-2536607
stinger has sent 10 merit (which were reverersed I guess) but the on the meritet post you can still see the 10 merit

This file shows number of unique Merit senders and total transactions: