Topic: [BPIP] Bitcointalk Public Information Project [Back in Action] - page 37. (Read 21862 times)

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:

A more accurate gauge of merits earned would be to utilise the methodology of how many unique times merit is earned, not totals received (regardless of starting amount).

A person who receives fifty unique merits of one merit each has earned far more than the next person who just once receives fifty merits.

Let that be your starting point.

Yes and yes. I'm still working on some edge cases, including this one and also some scenarios where multiple events happen around the same time (e.g. if someone had included johhnyUA when you excluded him). It looks like I should switch from set operations (SQL) to processing each event sequentially (loop). There is also a delay between when Bitcointalk updates dtview and full;dt lists, which is very annoying.

I saw an opportunity for a quick test and I took it.


Shouldn't it say "johhnyUA DT1 has gained the ability to choose DT2 members" when he went from -1 to 0?

Also, shouldn't distrust come before loss?

There had been confusion with the ranks/numbers shown under "Most Merited" on the front page earlier in the thread. I explained that the tooltip had indicated the Most Merited report had been including initial merit, as it has, and that those numbers/ranks are calculated using initial merit + earned merit to reflect & rank the merit numbers that are shown on a users profile on bitcointalk.

However, the "M" above it, which was linked to the r=mostmerited report did not match the information being displayed on the front page. So I corrected this report to match the front page ranks/numbers, and then moved the prior report to r=earnedmerit, so it would clearly indicate it is showing earned merit. I've also recently noticed that the "M"(merit) area under the MATR section on the profile page is also using the incorrect rank, but displaying the correct value. This rank will be fixed as soon as I get time today/tomorrow.

Recognition is based off of the r=earnedmerit rank/calculation, which does not include initial merit. The earned merit ranking may not be shown on the front page, but it makes sense to base the Most Recognized rank off of it because a Most Recognized profile would likely be one that has more earned merit.

As soon as I can, I'm also going to be setting up little "i" icons next to each of the main page ranks to provide more info on the calculations, and will provide a link to the earned merit report under the tooltip for Most Recognized.

Thank you LoyceV, it contains useful information but we're looking into some privacy aspects of this before we commit to anything.

Thank you Timelord2067, there is an issue on the profile page also related to this, and potentially some confusion which I may have caused when trying to clear up the confusion that Quickseller's (likely) alt had previously , I'm looking into this and will have an update done soon to hopefully clear up any confusion!