Topic: [BPIP] Bitcointalk Public Information Project [Back in Action] - page 36. (Read 21862 times)

I see you guys changed the way the Top merited list to includes the initial merit as well but do wa have access to the old list.
Now there are just a bunch of legendary on the bottom with 2-3 merit received. I would love to have an option to toggle off the received merit in that list, and see all the other ranks as well 

So @Vod, how they hanging?

Here's the thing...

@suchmoon and @ibminer have shifted the goal posts.  They show the "Most Merited (includes initial merit)" score on a users' profile, BUT they use the "Most earned merit (after initial merit)" rankings to calculate the most recognised score.

https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=earnedmerit

andulolika is not on this list therefore ((1,000+1,000+1,000)/3) is still 1000.

---

---

Perhaps you can get out of them ( @suchmoon and @ibminer  ) why they shifted the goal-posts yet show the skewered information as they had a negative reaction when I asked them then ramped it up when I showed them a work in progress.

---

---

@andulolika doesn't make the grade the way things are now.

Your recognition score should be 6.

982+1000+1000 = 2982
2982 / 3 = 994
1000 - 994 = 6

I guess SM will post when he finds the bug. 

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=andulolika

Regarding suchmoon answer I thanked on the original post since it clarified things. I do see users there with less score but I do not mind was just curious.

You cannot have a recognition score of 715 - that's wrong.

Even if your rank in merit was 1, both activity and trust are 1,000 meaning 1000-(2,001/3) and you would only have 333 recognition max.

Do you mean this: http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-29_Sat_06.37h/223200.html

That's LoyceV's site, not BPIP. He doesn't automatically update unbanned accounts AFAIK. But if you click the BPIP link there and go to Bit-Exo's profile on BPIP site:

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Bit-Exo.com

You'll see that the account was unbanned on February 18.


MATR is Merit, Activity, Trust, Recognition. -6 is the old trust score (+10 for one positive, -16 for 4 negatives), 4 is the number of users who red-trusted you.

Your flag is active with DefaultTrust settings, which is what BPIP information is based on. You might see it as inactive because you exclude users who support the flag.


Most Recognized list orders (ranks) users by the recognition score. Your score ranks you outside of top 1000 (that's what the > 1000 on the profile page shows). It means there are more than 1000 users with recognition scores higher than yours.

When looking at my trust list viewer it shows bit-exo as banned still even if i went and hit refresh on their profile, when does that data update?
Great service btw.
Edit: It also says my flag is active when bitcointalk tells me it isnt.
MATR says my trust is -6 then trust feedback information says -4.
I wonder what MATR means tho.

My profile shows a recognition of 715 then the most recognized list is ignoring it.

Edit: Interesting, thanks suchmoon.

I hadn't thought of that... Indeed, more processing power would be needed if you have to go two pages deep and it's done frequently.
Profile "Last active" field is for log in time, which is not connected to having posted anything recently. Because of this, I'm saying that the the last post time metric would be more relevant in the top activity page. With latest post time you can see the metric that matters for a profile ranking up in activity.

I think that if latest post time is getting implemented, it'd be good to force a scrape for the top 1000 activity accounts and fill this field for them first. Other BPIP profiles could start displaying a last post time field once/if a profile refresh is requested. And after an post date field has been filled for a user, I guess updates could be happening by monitoring the recent page.

For what it's worth, I wanted to see how fast users' latest post times could be scraped. Bitcointalk doesn't take long to load but the rate limit is what makes the process harder. Here's the table I compiled. It might not be useful but I was just experimenting.

That date is not available on the user profile, e.g.: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/alani123-121796 so we would have to scrape at least the first page of post history, roughly doubling the current scraping effort.

For recently active accounts we can the recent post page to update their last post timestamp: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=recent

That would be nice. If you can keep both days fields then only for recently a drive accounts is also fine. But what really is the limitation that restricts you from getting latest post date for longer inactive accounts?

To summarize a few of the recent additions, and a few new additions:

• Added a new "Report Options" menu on smerit.aspx & flaglog.aspx, also offers question marks to help understand the options.
  
• Added new background color changer, under the "settings" gear in the upper-right corner.
  
• Question marks added to main BPIP page & profile page to offer descriptions on where M/A/T/R comes from.
• Updated support page with more details on trust score calculation & colors used across the site.
• Also tried to create some links in the OP to organize some of the notable updates/changes.
• Added a custom error page to catch any exceptions.

I had thought about it at one point, but I don't think theymos would like it:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53590278

Not sure if this has been suggested before, but I've noticed that a decent amount of members got their display name changed lately. I think it could be a good idea to keep a record of these changes.

In my case, for example, my BPIP profile should show the following:


If you ever decide to implement this and need me to change my name to test it, let me know.

I take it back.  We're not equals - You've just wrapped that tin foil around your head even tighter.

Next.

We could do it for recently active accounts (last few months) but not for ones that haven't posted anything for a long time.

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