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

[TheBeardedBaby]

Maybe you should read what I just wrote - they don't include it in the calculations.

You are right, I didn't read your whole post, just saw that it was regarding some bugs in the formula. I didn't see the link you posted and it was exactly what I was looking for. I use it for my Top 1000 merit receivers who were not active the past 30 days and the last list is quite different from the previouse one, then I spotted the difference.
I was deranked from 20 to 60 in the most merited profiles, but since they change the way it's calculated, I'm OK with that.

[1714505551]

1714505551

[1714505551]

1714505551

[Timelord2067]

Maybe you should read what I just wrote - they don't include it in the calculations.

You are right, I didn't read your whole post, just saw that it was regarding some bugs in the formula. I didn't see the link you posted and it was exactly what I was looking for. I use it for my Top 1000 merit receivers who were not active the past 30 days and the last list is quite different from the previouse one, then I spotted the difference.
I was deranked from 20 to 60 in the most merited profiles, but since they change the way it's calculated, I'm OK with that.

Thank you for your acknowledgement.  I'm just on my way to work and will check out your link after I get home.

Regards,

[LoyceV]

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:

My Banned users list gets updated when a banned user makes a new post. From my logs on February 17:

Code:

Removing userID: 764113 from banned.html and usernames.txt because they're posting and thus can't be banned

However, he is indeed still marked as banned on my Trust list viewer. I forgot to update my local list since moving to AWS, this whole year my Trust list viewer has been using banned-data from December 27, 2019.
Sorry for that, it'll be fixed on next Saturday's update. Thanks andulolika!

I see you guys changed the way the Top merited list to includes the initial merit as well

That means the title should change:

Most Merited (includes initial merit)

but do wa have access to the old list.

Like http://loyce.club/Merit/all_users_who_earned_Merit_2020-02-28_Fri_05.36h.txt ?

[TheBeardedBaby]

but do wa have access to the old list.

Like http://loyce.club/Merit/all_users_who_earned_Merit_2020-02-28_Fri_05.36h.txt ?

Yes, that was what I was looking for (sorry to say that, but your loyce homepage really suck man, at least I'm honest and I know you are the Thick-Skinned Gang Leader).
I found it on BPIP thanks to Timelord2067, turned out that they have moved the list on the reports page.

[ibminer]

Earned merit: https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=earnedmerit
Most Merited: https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mostmerited

I have not changed the data displayed on the front page at all since we have taken over BPIP back in December and received the backup copy from Vod. That was the whole point of my changes, to not change data displayed on the front page and avoid disrupting ranks on the front page. I changed the report the link was going to in order to match the front page table data for "most merited", which I already explained in a prior post, and renamed the other to 'earnedmerit' to clear up confusion.

The tooltip exists even back in November of 2019, so I assumed this was the intent of the data.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191106133135/https://bpip.org/
(hover over "Most Merited")

[LoyceV]

Yes, that was what I was looking for (sorry to say that, but your loyce homepage really suck man, at least I'm honest and I know you are the Thick-Skinned Gang Leader).

That's actually intentional It was supposed to be a data dump site, but for some reason people keep going there as a starting point This link came from here.
What I mean to say is: It's on my list, but I still don't have the time for all the things I want to do.

If you guys stop asking about loyce.club here I can stop going off-topic too

[suchmoon]

I guess SM will post when he finds the bug. 

My guess is that only top 1000 ranks are ever updated, leaving old values in those profiles that were at some point in top 1000 and then dropped out. And this particular case seems to have a large number since the original formula that was not subtracting from 1000.

I'll take a look at it later.

@suchmoon and @ibminer have shifted the goal posts

No. Please stop commenting on every issue as if it's a conspiracy. Sometimes bugs are just bugs.

[Timelord2067]

Hmm, awkward:

@suchmoon and @ibminer have shifted the goal posts

No. Please stop commenting on every issue as if it's a conspiracy. Sometimes bugs are just bugs.

Actually no.  You're narrative is easy to prove as a false narrative by quoting the actual post:

Another glitch in your system: @Vod, @LoyceV, @PrimeNumber7, @suchmoon, @ibminer, @theymos and not forgetting @iasenko

As everyone can see I said there was a glitch in the system, nothing more.  Your wanting something to be true doesn't excuse what you said about me is not true.  You know what you said about me is not true therefore it is a lie.

I call you out. (feel free to start a "Timelord2067 Vs (your name here)" tread - everyone else does....

Next.

[suchmoon]

~

Fair enough. I'll just assume that the "goal posts" refer to the the changes we made to make the reports and numbers more consistent across the site and to add explanations for the calculations. Actual calculations didn't change. Ranks are determined the same way as they always were. Our goal is to make the site as useful and as accurate as we can and that goal hasn't changed either.

[Vod]

So @Vod, how they hanging?

Lower every day...  :/

@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.

I don't believe they have changed any calculations.  They are cleaning up the definitions I hastily created, and want to improve consistency throughout the site.  This coincided with a bug in recognition displayed on the profile page, and that may have contributed to the belief calculations were being altered.  Two separate things my friend. 

I hope we can keep the personal attacks in the forum Reputation area.

[Timelord2067]

I don't believe they have changed any calculations.  They are cleaning up the definitions I hastily created, and want to improve consistency throughout the site.  This coincided with a bug in recognition displayed on the profile page, and that may have contributed to the belief calculations were being altered.  Two separate things my friend. 

I hope we can keep the personal attacks in the forum Reputation area.

Believe me, I don't want to attack anybody.  Let's all move on.


I see there has been an alteration/modification overnight:

Most recognised goes past the initial 1,000 ranks - perhaps post 1,000 gets black while 101 - 1,000 gets a grey/gun metal colour?

[suchmoon]

The recognition issue has been fixed - old ranks should no longer show up on user profile.

I see there has been an alteration/modification overnight:

That was just temporary while I was recalculating ranks for the above fix. No badges for > 1000.

[Timelord2067]

The recognition issue has been fixed - old ranks should no longer show up on user profile.

I see there has been an alteration/modification overnight:

That was just temporary while I was recalculating ranks for the above fix. No badges for > 1000.

Guys, I have a suggestion.

It's just a thought bubble, let's kick it around a little bit and see if we can do something with it.


This tells me nothing:



What I'm getting at is what sort of scores did this user receive to garner 574^th place overall?

My suggestion is regardless of whether you use either link format:

• https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Timelord2067
• https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?id=Timelord2067

If a toggle can be added to the end of the address instead of just the first 1,000 ranks being shown the first (say) 10,000 ranks are shown instead.

Think of how the BitCoinTalk's Forum profile pages can be modified:

• From this:      https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=131361
• To this:      https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=131361;dt

The first one shows me my profile with my own DT settings set and the second is how someone without any settings having been set would see those same rankings.  I know there were a handful of settings such as the ;dt one - I don't use them so I can't show them as examples.


So how would this work?

Well,

Code:

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Timelord2067;tk

would show the first ten thousand ranks - I really don't feel after that there is any necessity to go must past ten thousand rank places, but most of us are at the top of the mountain already, so this is more for those in the foot-hills looking up at Mt Olympus (and you would have to draw the line somewhere)

Code:

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Timelord2067;mm

would show the most recognised if the most merited were calculated with

Code:

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Timelord2067;me

being most earned.

So then there could be

Code:

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Timelord2067;tk;mm

which would show a given UID's most recognised ranking including any ranks they have in the first ten thousand as well as calculating the ranks via most merited score.

Code:

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Timelord2067;ok;me

would show the most recognised showing only those ranks they have earned in the first one thousand ranks and the merit earned scores.


As I briefly touched on in a previous post, the black shield could become >1,000 ranks with a very dark grey (as in Tin a more base metal than copper the rank 100^th - 50^th) for those ranks 1,000^th up to 101^st places.


I have some other thoughts on the matter, but I'll put this one out there for genuine discussion.

Thanks for reading.

[LoyceV]

user_ids.txt

It looks like BPIP doesn't add new entries for my Trust list viewer, see for example http://loyce.club/trust/2020-03-07_Sat_06.19h/user_ids.txt :

Code:

2739424

User 2739424's profile on BPIP doesn't show a direct link to his Trust list.

Other users with a new Trust list have the same problem: https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=youngbusinessman. I checked last week's users with new Trust list, and they're left out too.

[andulolika]

Should i assume my recognition of 0 is because of the trust ratings? I didn't want to believe vod when he said "6"

[ibminer]

Should i assume my recognition of 0 is because of the trust ratings? I didn't want to believe vod when he said "6"

Most Recognized is calculated using: 1000 - ((Activity Rank + Trust Rank + Earned Merit Rank) / 3)
Anything over 1000 rank uses just "1000".

So, for you, 1000 - ((1000 + 1000 + 1000) /3) = 0

user_ids.txt is not updating on our end. I've adjusted it, so I think these should be showing as of now.

I don't think we're going to be showing badges for ranks over 1,000 at this point. However, the reports themselves could potentially start going past 1,000 so that more data can be seen on lower profiles, but this would require more resources, higher hosting costs, etc... and it isn't something we can even think about doing until we can make some back-end infrastructure changes, which are currently being worked on, but not close to being complete.

[andulolika]

I noticed https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=130731 trust rating hasn't been updated in the forum for a long while but it doesn't show well on bpip.

I also noticed the amount of members mentioned in the "members" tab of the forum near logout doesn't coincide much with the amount of members mentioned on bpip.

It would be nice to have other kinds of latest statistics of the forum or points to out of the ordinary things.

Should i assume my recognition of 0 is because of the trust ratings? I didn't want to believe vod when he said "6"

Most Recognized is calculated using: 1000 - ((Activity Rank + Trust Rank + Earned Merit Rank) / 3)
Anything over 1000 rank uses just "1000".

So, for you, 1000 - ((1000 + 1000 + 1000) /3) = 0

user_ids.txt is not updating on our end. I've adjusted it, so I think these should be showing as of now.

I don't think we're going to be showing badges for ranks over 1,000 at this point. However, the reports themselves could potentially start going past 1,000 so that more data can be seen on lower profiles, but this would require more resources, higher hosting costs, etc... and it isn't something we can even think about doing until we can make some back-end infrastructure changes, which are currently being worked on, but not close to being complete.

my merited rank is actualy 751.

Edit:Also shows my negative rating as -3 when it is bigger.

[DireWolfM14]

I noticed https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=130731 trust rating hasn't been updated in the forum for a long while but it doesn't show well on bpip.

Interesting.  I've seen discrepancies that were due to variations between my personal trust list and Default Trust, but in this case DT show 3 negative ratings while Bpip only shows 2.  It also lists the user's "trust color" as dark green despite having the same number of positive and negative ratings.  There does seem to be a bug in that user's calculation.

my merited rank is actualy 751.

The rating you see on your personal page is calculated using earned merit.  The merit rank on the index page uses all merit, including air-dropped merit.

[Timelord2067]

Have found another error in the system:

Start by visiting https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=131361;dt (note the ;dt on the end) on the profile page click on the letter I in the circle - the link is https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?id=131361;dt

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=131361;dt brings up the following error:

https://bpip.org/?badquery?

and what looks to be the main page.


I've tried it with other profiles

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1120675;dt (banned)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=37522;dt (inactive)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30541;dt
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18321;dt
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35;dt

and get the same error.

*edit* fixed URL

[suchmoon]

Interesting.  I've seen discrepancies that were due to variations between my personal trust list and Default Trust, but in this case DT show 3 negative ratings while Bpip only shows 2.

Last updated 13 days ago, i.e. before the most recent DT1 update. My guess is that one of those DT ratings was not a DT rating 13 days ago.

It also lists the user's "trust color" as dark green despite having the same number of positive and negative ratings.  There does seem to be a bug in that user's calculation.

Kind of. Works as described but perhaps not quite logically. "Aged" positive ratings are 10 points each, and negatives are counted as 2^(number of distinct negatives) so the sum total is still positive and greater than 10, i.e. dark green. We are planning to rethink DT scoring and all that stuff at some point.