Topic: [BPIP] Bitcointalk Public Information Project [Back in Action] - page 9. (Read 19631 times)

 
Makes more sense.

For a moment, I thought about how I could use that...
It's true that I'm no programming expert, but I also know that that wasn't enough for me to do anything. So I thought maybe I'd have to do some deeper research on the topic to find out.
But that being said, it's clear. Thanks again. 

You can't, it requires server access. I only posted it as a reminder for myself.

Well, with so many numbers I even got confused! 



Thanks for the help @LoyceV, you are fantastic.
I have to see how I can run this code, for future situations.




Your list is interesting, the only thing missing is the user ID. I always prefer the ID over the username. Because a different character is enough for the result to no longer work.
But thanks for the work.




In the midst of so many options, I think I'll opt for this one. Since it only includes active users who have received merits. Right @ibminer?

---

Thanks again for everyone's help.
I hope that later you will like the statistics that I will present with these data. 

Yep, I apparently muffed a copy/paste on the sample users above, thanks again LoyceV.

Day 1: I'm in love with your strut
Day 2: I'm in love with your strut
Day 3: I'm in love with your strut
And guess what?  I'm in love with your strut.   (I'm straight btw - "objectify, but don't cross the line!" =P)
.. I couldn't help myself. - maybe NSFW.
edit: had to fix the lyrics!

My query ended on 12-31-2022 so you might have 1 more day of results than what I posted from BPIP. The main differences I see between LoyceV and BPIP seems to be the users who had posts quickly removed before BPIP picked them up (you probably have these), and while doing a difference check, I had ran into a handful of users with posts in 2023 not 2022, which would not be in your list.. but I only spot checked maybe 10-15 accounts. With 2 parsers usually running I'm surprised BPIP didn't see these deleted posts but the parsers run multiple jobs checking various things at various intervals so quickly deleted posts may not get picked up by the time a parser checks the new post area.

I also want to join the party…

I got 52593 users by checking distinct users from all posts on my database >= 2022-01-01 and 2023-01-01 <

Idk why it’s a lot lower than LoyceV’s.

https://public.ninjastic.space/users-2022.txt

I think you made a mistake on AverageGlabella, who made many posts (and is listed in your list).
The other 3 users posted spam/malware (1, 2, 3), and MindlessElectron must have gotten to them before your scraper saw them. They're also banned, so it doesn't matter.

Thank you Sir!

I ended up running some queries anyway, numbers didn't match up with your data because it looks like there are users in your list who have not made a post, and BPIP's list would not include anyone in 2023. I kept the queries simple but this is what I'm seeing:

LoyceV's
https://loyce.club/other/tmp/joker_josue.txt -- (55,937 results)
some examples of users with no posts (28452, 14624, 392646, 28877)

BPIP
https://bpip.org/active_in_2022.txt -- (51,791 results)
https://bpip.org/active_in_2022_and_received_merit_in_2022.txt -- (5,300 results)

I can do that
I have data on all users, and it's easy to check which files have been edited (meaning: they made a post) since January 1st, 2022 (Amsterdam time, this includes users active in 2023): see this file. If you don't want to include banned users, see this file.
If you ever want an update: remind me of this post:

Yeah, sometimes it's hard to define what an active user is, one that regularly visits the forum or one that posts.

What I would like to get is a list of users who made at least one post in 2022 and received merits. In short, as long as I can get a list of users who have made at least one post, that's enough for me. Think you can help?

Are you trying to go by the 'last active' date of a profile, or if an account made a post in 2022?  It might be more accurate with the latter for BPIP, since a parser wouldn't check inactive profiles for the 'last active' date (unless a manual refresh is done), it is ultimately looking for an account to make a post... so there could have been profiles that were inactive but logged in at some point in 2022, but if they didn't make a post, BPIP likely wouldn't have updated the 'last active' field unless manual refreshes were being done on specific accounts. I may be able to query for a list of every user who made a post in 2022 but I'm not sure if that's what you are looking for or not.

I would like to know if you can get me a list of all users who were active in 2022.
Or else a link where you have that information.

I'm not saying I have a strong preference to not rank the top least trusted, I just don't mind the negative ranks stopping at a dead-end.. which already sort of creates a group at the dead-end of currently 3 accounts.

Nobody is perfect, but you know you don't have to be a bad boy or girl to be cool, right JJG?  

Regardless, based on how BPIP stands now, the bad list would probably be deemed as the top 100 least trusted, based on their feedback score (which can be sorted on the "Trusted" column on the main page).

Interesting concept ibminer.

In accordance with your preference not to rank (which there is already a kind of ranking), maybe instead list the top 50 or something like that by alphabetical order or some other criteria that just puts "them" in the group of "bad boys (or girls)" but does not subdivide within the group... I just noticed that I had using the word "them."  hahahahahaha..

I am being a bit judgmental depending on how BIG you might make the group or what criteria that you might chose to use.  All of us might have a streak of "bad boy/girl" contained therein, whether we acknowledge it or not.

Took a closer look at this myself and there is not really an "issue" per se, unless it makes more sense to change it, but similar to the Most Merited report, currently the ratios are calculated using unique send/receivers and not the sum of merit:


So in the case of GazetaBitcoin, currently it ends up being:
(277 times merit was sent to unique/distinct users) / (231 times merit was sent from unique/distinct users) = which is where the 1.20 (rounded) ratio comes in.

---

Part of me sees what you are saying, and part of me feels like there shouldn't be a 'winner' in the sense that currently they all end up at the same dead-end of shame. I feel like some of these guys might take some sort of pride in being worse then another, and I'd rather not cater to it, but that's just my opinion.

While on the subject of small improvements:

Shouldn't the Least Trusted counter go deeper than -2^21? There's a new contestant (currently #5) who will very soon have the exact same value as the Top 4.
I know it's nitpicking, but may the worst of them "win"!

#2 would be seen as the same issue as #3, the popup window just shows a smaller set of the data, so both arewere showing number of meriters, not the total merit received. -- But the DB was modified last night, so both the popup window and mostemerit.aspx reports should now be displaying the total merit received (and column name/header text will be updated in the near future)
#1:

The general stats on a profile page will get updated instantly when a refresh profile happens, as this updates the main profile table in the DB... but ranks are done through a procedure at regular intervals to all top users, and it would include all badges getting updated at once. For resource/performance purposes, allowing a refresh profile button to recalculate the ranks of thousands of users might not be worth it.

If here in our country the record of people born is recorded in the census, when they were born, day, date, month, year, place, and who the parents are.

Here in the forum, this BPIP is like a census, where you can see the detailed information of all the members here in this forum platform when it was done in this forum, when it was active and when it was not active and we will also know if there is any improvement in their accounts via merit within 90 days, 120 days or 150 days. And we will also see who are the top merits and so on.

This is a good place if we have any members who want to investigate here as well.

Hehe, thank you anyway


Oh I understand now... it figures.


I think this is up to you and suchmoon... After all, you are the ones working on this website and only you know how much work such change would need Either way, at least we know now what those numbers represent.

And regarding the other two issues I raised (the ones from 1. and 2.) do you have any news?

---

Excepting that, I observed one more inconsistency, as it follows: sometimes when I click on "Refresh Profile" button, the "profile's numbers" update on the profile page, but not also through the site. By "profile numbers" I mean, for example, the number of earned merits -- so this number is updated. However, if I rank up a few positions on the ladder of "Most merit" or "Most earned merit", this rank up is not reflected on the website, nor on the upper part of the profile page (the one with badges). I will try explain this step by step, in case it's easier to understand.

- step 1: I know that I have 3411 merits and I am the 57th user with most merits; let's suppose that the user from 56th position has 3412 merits. At same time, I am also the 45th user with most earned merits. Let's suppose that the one from 44th place has 3413 merits. This information is properly shown on the profile page:



- step 2: I receive 3 merits. At this point, I know (in my mind) that I have more merits than the user which was earlier on 56th place on Most Merit ladder and also than the one from 44th place from Most Earned Merit ladder
- step 3: I click on "Refresh Profile" and the new number of merits is now shown on my bpip profile (under "Merit" and "Earned" sections)

Result: although the correct number of merits is shown on bpip profile page, my new achieved positions on both ladders (Most Merit and Most Earned Merit) -- meaning 56th most merited and 44th user with most earned merits -- are not updated. The badges from the upper part of the page are also not updated and they still show that I am on 57th place (instead of 56th) on Most Merit ladder and 45th on Most Earned Merit ladder (instead of 44th). If I access both ladders (https://bpip.org/Report?r=mostmerit and https://bpip.org/Report?r=earnedmerit), I am also shown as the 57th / 45th (and with the number of merits not refreshed), instead of 56th / 44th.

It's like the refreshed number of merits is reflected only on the bpip profile page and does not propagate through the rest of the website. I am not sure if same happens also with the other badges / ladders.

Of course, after a while the refreshed information is propagated through the entire site. I just wanted to emphasize that it does not happen after "Refresh Profile" button is pressed.

I think it should be the actual total merit, or maybe both.

I'd say we can start by changing the current value to be merits (not senders), that should be a database-only change. Then we can decide if we want a column for unique senders.

I'm still looking into the S/R issue.

Thank you, if I had any sMerit, I'd send some.  

So I may have initially misinterpreted what this report was pulling a while back when creating the "info" box on it. It looks like this report is actually calculating the number of times a post was merited, which is apparently why the column was named "Times Merited", not total merit received, so the wording here may be confusing. Currently the Helena Yu post "Cybersecurity subforum" is showing 6 on the report page (link is for last 48 hours, since I'm a day behind on your post   ) - this report would offer the same data that this popup window pulls from, in a longer form. 6 because there are 6 users who have sent merit to it. Not sure if this deserves a new report or if we should change this one to actually count the total merit received?

It doesn't appear to be unique users though, as it is showing '19' on this post, but I'm only counting 18 people.. so I'm guessing the same person merit'd 2 times which is giving the 19.
edit: ^ Actually, there are more than 1 users who have given merit more than once so I think the inconsistency here may have been me not refreshing the page but the parser picking up another merit'er... or the merit happened before 48 hours.. so I do think it is supposed to be unique users, but I haven't delved back into the code to check on this one yet, just my observation.