[BPIP] Bitcointalk Public Information Project [Back in Action]

[ibminer]

There's definitely something not right with the calculations. (not on my end mind)

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.

[1714907569]

1714907569

[1714907569]

1714907569

[1714907569]

1714907569

[Vod]

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

2/23/2020 9:07:48 PM           DT1 peers                  Vod DT1 no longer distrusts johhnyUA DT1
2/23/2020 9:00:38 PM           DT1 peers                  Vod DT1 distrusts johhnyUA DT1
2/23/2020 9:00:38 PM           DT1 membership        johhnyUA DT1 has lost the ability to choose DT2 members

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?

[suchmoon]

~

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.

[Timelord2067]

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.

[LoyceV]

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).

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

Code:

     1. 6568 Merit received by theymos (#35) from 922 unique users in 2481 transactions
     2. 4802 Merit received by LoyceV (#459836) from 556 unique users in 2581 transactions
     3. 3771 Merit received by suchmoon (#234771) from 375 unique users in 2155 transactions
     4. 3539 Merit received by o_e_l_e_o (#1188543) from 358 unique users in 1942 transactions
     5. 3353 Merit received by DdmrDdmr (#1582324) from 353 unique users in 1746 transactions
     6. 3286 Merit received by micgoossens (#1067333) from 303 unique users in 2110 transactions
     7. 2456 Merit received by fillippone (#1852120) from 245 unique users in 1357 transactions
     8. 2440 Merit received by Last of the V8s (#479624) from 221 unique users in 1720 transactions
     9. 2411 Merit received by The Pharmacist (#487418) from 300 unique users in 1274 transactions
    10. 2232 Merit received by gmaxwell (#11425) from 148 unique users in 696 transactions
    11. 2171 Merit received by satoshi (#3) from 252 unique users in 349 transactions

[TheBeardedBaby]

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).

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

Code:

     1. 6568 Merit received by theymos (#35) from 922 unique users in 2481 transactions
     2. 4802 Merit received by LoyceV (#459836) from 556 unique users in 2581 transactions
     3. 3771 Merit received by suchmoon (#234771) from 375 unique users in 2155 transactions
     4. 3539 Merit received by o_e_l_e_o (#1188543) from 358 unique users in 1942 transactions
     5. 3353 Merit received by DdmrDdmr (#1582324) from 353 unique users in 1746 transactions
     6. 3286 Merit received by micgoossens (#1067333) from 303 unique users in 2110 transactions
     7. 2456 Merit received by fillippone (#1852120) from 245 unique users in 1357 transactions
     8. 2440 Merit received by Last of the V8s (#479624) from 221 unique users in 1720 transactions
     9. 2411 Merit received by The Pharmacist (#487418) from 300 unique users in 1274 transactions
    10. 2232 Merit received by gmaxwell (#11425) from 148 unique users in 696 transactions
    11. 2171 Merit received by satoshi (#3) from 252 unique users in 349 transactions

Very nice, but also this at the bottom >

Code:

32957. 0 Merit received by gwsukabokepjepang (#2536607) from 2 unique users in 2 transactions

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2536607
stinger has sent 10 merit (which were reverersed I guess) but the on the meritet post you can still see the 10 merit

[Timelord2067]

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).

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

Code:

   256. 407 Merit received by romanornr (#225292) from 16 unique users in 32 transactions

   286. 354 Merit received by Timelord2067 (#131361) from 102 unique users in 172 transactions

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.

[LoyceV]

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

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.

(can it be the -10 sent by theymos).

Yes. It's theymos' manual fix for stingers' source sMerit abuse.

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

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

[ibminer]

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.

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.

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.

[Timelord2067]

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

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

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.

[ibminer]

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

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.

[Timelord2067]

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

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? 

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

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

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

** 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.

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  )

[ibminer]

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?)

Wrong formula == Wrong value.

Well, that's a bit paranoid isn't it?

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.

especially given you are LESS TRUSTED [1a] [1b] than even me [2a] [2b] - according to your own metrics  

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.

[guigui371]

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 :

https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?to=&from=&start=&end=&min=&max= ---> Real Time Historical sMerit Transfer. See link for instructions

Located here  : https://bpip.org/reports.aspx

The hyperlink sends to https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx
And there is this explaination :

Code:

?to= OR ?from= required

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 :

Code:

An exception has occurred.
Please contact someone from the BPIP Team or check the Support page for information on reporting errors.

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. 

[suchmoon]

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.

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

[guigui371]

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.

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

yay, it works,
Thanks for the explanation.
Thanks

[suchmoon]

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.

The trust color, could we get a legend somewhere?

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

[Timelord2067]

Have you finished editing your rant?

Paranoia and FUD.

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:

First error I've found:



page has been open for a number of hours while I was out and about.

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.

[suchmoon]

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

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.

[Timelord2067]

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

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.

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