Announcing BPIP - The Bitcointalk Public Information Project!

[TheBeardedBaby]

I see now BPIP collects data for the sent/received feedback as well.  Any plans to make a feedback log list like "recent feedback sent" with possibility to arrange it by negative/positive/neutral?

[1714919885]

1714919885

[1714919885]

1714919885

[1714919885]

1714919885

[1714919885]

1714919885

[Vod]

I see now BPIP collects data for the sent/received feedback as well.  Any plans to make a feedback log list like "recent feedback sent" with possibility to arrange it by negative/positive/neutral?

Yes, I am collecting data on all the trust changes.  Just need time to build the reports.

I am also updating the merit parsing, so for the next few days the merit numbers will not be updated. 

[Timelord2067]

Hi Vod,

Apologies if these questions have been asked before.  Have just been looking around the BPIP - Are there a maximum of six shields obtainable?  

I can see users stats are advancing, however the rank shields don't seem to be changing.  Do they advance once a fortnight/week/day/other??? I've noticed my post count isn't advancing past 501^st rank.  At 4,204 posts I should be in about 483^rd position.  My most merited (211 merits) should put me in 275^th position.  How that relates to most recognised will be interesting to see.

Seeing as I'm asking about the other shields/ranks... Is there a sub-ranking that assigns the order for an equal value for most activity (or any of the others for that matter), or, is it just a first registered first assigned basis?

[eternalgloom]

Something might be wrong with the merit stats, mine haven't been updating for the last couple of days.
Still stuck on 187, while my account was supposedly parsed multiple times in the past 2 days.

No biggie, just thought I'd mention it here

edit: Sorry, I should really read the rest of the thread before posting

[bitmover]

Still stuck on 187, while my account was supposedly parsed multiple times in the past 2 days.

I am also updating the merit parsing, so for the next few days the merit numbers will not be updated.  

He just said that merit number will not be updated in the next few days. Just be patient.

[Timelord2067]

Still stuck on 187, while my account was supposedly parsed multiple times in the past 2 days.

I am also updating the merit parsing, so for the next few days the merit numbers will not be updated.  

He just said that merit number will not be updated in the next few days. Just be patient.

As I said in my post, it's not just the merits.

[Vod]

As I said in my post, it's not just the merits.

Sorry for not responding sooner.

The merit log is parsed every minute.   Activity is updated once per hour (can I decrease this?)  Trust on parse and recognition on change.

The ranks are recalculated every min as well, but only if needed.  So with merit not updating, the ranks would only update when something else changed.  
There are only five badges right now, but I want to add a sixth for DT status.  

No, I do not use any sub ranking because I don't know what best to rank on.  MSSQL cannot guarantee the order of non ranked columns, so your ranking may change as the ranking tables are updated.

[Timelord2067]

As I said in my post, it's not just the merits.

Sorry for not responding sooner.

The merit log is parsed every minute.   Activity is updated once per hour (can I decrease this?)  Trust on parse and recognition on change.

The ranks are recalculated every min as well, but only if needed.  So with merit not updating, the ranks would only update when something else changed.  
There are only five badges right now, but I want to add a sixth for DT status.  

No, I do not use any sub ranking because I don't know what best to rank on.  MSSQL cannot guarantee the order of non ranked columns, so your ranking may change as the ranking tables are updated.

Thanks for the explanation of the updating - I'm still trying to figure out how to utilize this tool for the Known Alts thread (I see others are referencing the site)

I was in a group of writers a while ago that had a ranking system for the various figures, how many contributions, how many pages posted etc.  One person came up with a formula (will have to dig it out to reference it) but it was something like

square (number of ranks) root of ( 1/rank1 X 1/rank2 X 1/rank3 etc ) It's been over a decade since I last had a look at that formula so I'll have to hunt it out and pass it on to you for consideration.

It did seem to work with varied ranks.


*edit* May have been

square (number of ranks) root of ( 1/( 1/rank1 X 1/rank2 X 1/rank3 etc ))

*second edit*

Did some calculations during my break at work today, am trying to recall a formula I saw more than 20 years ago and haven't referenced in over a decade/dozen years...

Code:

square (number of ranks) root of ( rank1 X rank2 X rank3 etc )

This gets you an accurate number - but I hasten to point out that it isn't the same number as when you add the values together and then do an average, you get a different result.  (not sure where the inverse came into it - again I'll have to hunt out paperwork from 20 years ago, can't do a search all, just the old fashioned read each page until I find what I'm looking for method)

The same goes for in statistics where you divide (or square root) by a number less one where one number is wildly out compared with the rest.

eg, I have four values above 1,000 as does Vod

LoyceV has all five values above 1,000 and yet another xtraelv has just three values above 1,000 so taking one out still leaves one value above 1,000 which drags his score down considerably.  For a sample group of a quarter of a million UID's, you would have to use all five values bearing in mind some people would apear to drop down but that is only because their score is deficient in some areas.


To save confusion perhaps a generic shield with

>1K
>5k or
>10K

be added - so that anyone down the totem poll doesn't start asking the repetitive question of why someone with three shields is lower (or higher) down/up the ranks than someone with four or five shields.

(And I just recalled the "Donation" Shield was the extra Shield I was counting in my earlier question)

[TheBeardedBaby]

Something weird is happening with the DT1 Change Log.

Suddenly all that were removed from DT1 looks like are delisted from the trust lists of all the other DT members, which is false.
Example with DarkStar_, I still have it in my trust list.


I guess it's difficult to filter those accounts who were removed by theymos' script and therefor BPIP assumes that we have removed them from our lists.

[Timelord2067]

I personally would discount the merit rankings *unless* it was how many instances merit was given by others.

Those on the merit-go-round just give each-other merits for slagging off at whomever is that day's punching bag, or, those that gave out 50 merits on day one then promptly ran out of merits skew the results. So, the higher up the merit list the less accurate to values really are.

Besides, all seeded merits scores when merits were introduced would have to be deducted if the current values were employed.

Just my two satoshi's - thanks for reading.

[smyslov]

I am happy and proud to announce the official launch of the Bitcointalk Public Information Project!

This project aims to track and record all forum activity of all users.

We currently track the following:
- Full Merit History (updated every 60 seconds)
- Security/Mod log (updated every 60 seconds)
- All other profile info is updated on a dynamic schedule based on your recent activity.

Some features are not yet added, such as the ability to sort searches.  Additional pages such as Merit History will be added soon.

THIS PROJECT HAS JUST STARTED.  In the following weeks I will be adding real time tracking for Default Trust membership.  I also plan to let users add profiles to custom lists.  This will be useful if you want to (example) track profiles to not send merit to, or if you run a bounty campaign. 

If you can think of anything else you would like to see tracked, please comment here or click on the SPONSOR link to contact me.

https://bpip.org

I am aware of this project but I did not know that you created this, this is huge and a big help to the community, it makes things easy to all members to track all the information about their account in Bitcointalk, I don't know but this is the only forum I know that has something like this.

[ibminer]

Something weird is happening with the DT1 Change Log.

This has been reported.  Vod should be fixing before the next update.

[TheBeardedBaby]

Something weird is happening with the DT1 Change Log.

This has been reported.  Vod should be fixing before the next update.

Oh man, we need to have one thread for all the BPIP problems, otherwise it's getting messy. Now I have to bookmark all those threads to keep an eye of them so I won't double report something, or just track changes...

[Vickyphred]

That will be nice. Looking forward to when activity are updated instantly as one perform

[bitmover]

Hey Vod, I was taking a look at my profile and found something weird.

Code:

Sent	4	0	0
Received	0	0	0
Trust color:	Black
[b]Instances BTC was risked: 2 ( 50 % of 4 trades)[/b]

I sent 4 feedbacks (that´s right) but no BTC was risked any time. And what does 50% mean?

Maybe this sentence should be removed if no BTC was risked in the trust feedback?

[OmegaStarScream]

~snip~

It's hard to tell now but from my understanding, It's based on the trust of the members you dealt with. You have sent 4 feedbacks. 2 were done with trusted members (no risk) while the two others were done with negative and neutral members (there is a risk).

@Vod, I've seen that you implemented the ability to search for users, it's a good feature but since UID's are unique, there is no reason to give the "possible" profiles you're looking for after typing someone's user ID. From a UX perspective, I believe that after typing 375981 (my UID) instead of being redirected to:

Code:

https://bpip.org/search.aspx?q=375981

It should take you directly to the profile:

Code:

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

Also, I have noticed that while typing a user name or ID, hitting {enter} doesn't run the search query. It just refreshes the page.

[ibminer]

Code:

https://bpip.org/search.aspx?q=375981

It should take you directly to the profile:

Code:

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

Also, I have noticed that while typing a user name or ID, hitting {enter} doesn't run the search query. It just refreshes the page.

Out of curiosity, are you using firefox?  I've done most of my testing via Chrome/Safari (which {enter} appears to be working for). But after seeing your post, I tested firefox, which is just refreshing the page and apparently doesn't like my javascript.   - I'll look into this.

I agree with the userid search as well. There may be use in having a partial userID search (to search accounts created around the same time as a particular userid) but as of now it doesn't do a partial userid search, so I think it makes sense to redirect it directly to the profile.

[Timelord2067]

ibminer

I'm using Firefox and have the same enter/refresh error.

[OmegaStarScream]

Out of curiosity, are you using firefox?  I've done most of my testing via Chrome/Safari (which {enter} appears to be working for). But after seeing your post, I tested firefox, which is just refreshing the page and apparently doesn't like my javascript.   - I'll look into this.

I agree with the userid search as well. There may be use in having a partial userID search (to search accounts created around the same time as a particular userid) but as of now it doesn't do a partial userid search, so I think it makes sense to redirect it directly to the profile.

Yes, using Firefox. It seems to be working fine on Edge too (I know, no one uses that).

[ibminer]

Well that was more painful than I expected.

The javascript I had done basically just executed a "click" on the search button, it really should have worked in firefox... and firefox was executing the "click" but it didn't seem to do anything. I tried a jquery variation and traditional javascript but nothing seemed to make all browsers happy. I think it was more something related to the "scriptmanager" that asp.net loads and how the search button was setup to do its postback. Long story short, I came across asp.net's "DefaultButton" property which can be used within a panel... this new method seems to be working across all browsers!