[TOOL] ⭐Bitcointalk BRDb score

[fillippone]

Theymos should also delete the Merit points if a user deletes their post; otherwise, the count would be seriously skewed.

I think this has been discussed before, I cannot remember if it was theymos himself or most probably LoyceV.
If a post is deleted, it can be for the most various reasons, but the effort remains. And even if the merit itself was deleted, merits don't go away.
Activity will, for sure, and you can be rank-demoted if it happens you cancel many posts.
It has happened in the past!

[LoyceV]

Theymos should also delete the Merit points if a user deletes their post; otherwise, the count would be seriously skewed.

If a post is deleted, it can be for the most various reasons, but the effort remains.

I think I've brought it up when I Merited a post that warned in a scam thread. That post was worth reading, until the entire topic got deleted. Those Merits shouldn't be deleted.

Removing Merit would also mean removing 0.5 sMerit, which could mean the sMerit that someone already spent suddenly disappears. That adds more complications than it's worth.

[*Ace*]

Theymos should also delete the Merit points if a user deletes their post; otherwise, the count would be seriously skewed.

If a post is deleted, it can be for the most various reasons, but the effort remains.

I think I've brought it up when I Merited a post that warned in a scam thread. That post was worth reading, until the entire topic got deleted. Those Merits shouldn't be deleted.

Removing Merit would also mean removing 0.5 sMerit, which could mean the sMerit that someone already spent suddenly disappears. That adds more complications than it's worth.

You’re right, and to be honest I hadn’t given this possibility a second thought. If you remove the Merits, you’d have to remove the smerits as well, but what if they’ve already been spent? It makes the situation far too complicated.
I’ve been thinking about it over the last few days, but to be honest I haven’t come up with a viable solution to the problem. The only option is not to accept a post count in the database that’s lower than the previous one already stored there – a sort of safety mechanism to prevent people from manipulating the score in their own favour.

[LoyceV]

I’ve been thinking about it over the last few days, but to be honest I haven’t come up with a viable solution to the problem.

What if there is no problem? You're basically a third-party creating a custom score. You can create anything you want, given the restraints of the current forum.

The only option is not to accept a post count in the database that’s lower than the previous one already stored there – a sort of safety mechanism to prevent people from manipulating the score in their own favour.

What if a spammer decides to clean up his past spam? I know it's rare, but I've seen it happen. I'd say it's only fair if he gets a higher score afterwards.

[*Ace*]

I’ve been thinking about it over the last few days, but to be honest I haven’t come up with a viable solution to the problem.

What if there is no problem? You're basically a third-party creating a custom score. You can create anything you want, given the restraints of the current forum.

The only option is not to accept a post count in the database that’s lower than the previous one already stored there – a sort of safety mechanism to prevent people from manipulating the score in their own favour.

What if a spammer decides to clean up his past spam? I know it's rare, but I've seen it happen. I'd say it's only fair if he gets a higher score afterwards.

Of course!
I don’t want to label or permanently stigmatise a user.
Obviously, everyone should have a second chance, but it doesn’t seem right to do so just to disguise or manipulate the score.
I hope Libert19 doesn’t take this the wrong way – I’m not criticising him; in fact, he’s highlighted a bug.
I probably won’t be making any drastic changes in this regard, partly because I’ve no idea how to get round the problem.

[libert19]

^ Why would I take wrong way? Or more like in any way? Anyway, to be fair, there should be more to score than mere merits; it should be one of criteria but not everything.

[*Ace*]

^ Why would I take wrong way? Or more like in any way? Anyway, to be fair, there should be more to score than mere merits; it should be one of criteria but not everything.

It was just a figure of speech; I didn’t want you to misunderstand what I said.
Merits are a primary indicator, but they are not the only one taken into account
Posts and Merits
Posts and Merits 120 days
Profile age
Together, these factors, along with other variables always linked to the Merits received, make up the final score.
The available metadata are this

[Lucius]

@*Ace*, I looked at how it looks for my profile and in the badges section I see one that shows that I am a merit source - that is not 100% true. I guess your algorithms went wrong somewhere, but nothing that can't be fixed, right?

[DYING_S0UL]

@*Ace*, I looked at how it looks for my profile and in the badges section I see one that shows that I am a merit source - that is not 100% true. I guess your algorithms went wrong somewhere, but nothing that can't be fixed, right?

FYI, you are not the only one. I checked a few other high ranking users, and all of them had that MS badge.
For example, Porfirii, Vod - afaik, they aren't merit sources (unless I'm wrong).

Am I though? 

[*Ace*]

@*Ace*, I looked at how it looks for my profile and in the badges section I see one that shows that I am a merit source - that is not 100% true. I guess your algorithms went wrong somewhere, but nothing that can't be fixed, right?

FYI, you are not the only one. I checked a few other high ranking users, and all of them had that MS badge.
For example, Porfirii, Vod - afaik, they aren't merit sources (unless I'm wrong).

Am I though? 

I don’t know whether you’re right or not; I’m not familiar with the official list of Merit sources. The tool used to perform a mathematical calculation to determine who was or wasn’t a Merit source.
If the ratio of Merits received to Merits sent was higher than 0.5, then the user was a Merit source, as a normal user cannot send more Merits than they receive.
But this only worked whilst the data was coming from Bitlist; now, unfortunately, I’m no longer getting data from Bitlist and something has gone wrong somewhere, but I’m currently on holiday and can’t get round to working on the code.
I’ll try to sort out the problem after 16 July, when I get back home.

[DYING_S0UL]

I don’t know whether you’re right or not; I’m not familiar with the official list of Merit sources. The tool used to perform a mathematical calculation to determine who was or wasn’t a Merit source.
If the ratio of Merits received to Merits sent was higher than 0.5, then the user was a Merit source, as a normal user cannot send more Merits than they receive.
But this only worked whilst the data was coming from Bitlist; now, unfortunately, I’m no longer getting data from Bitlist and something has gone wrong somewhere, but I’m currently on holiday and can’t get round to working on the code.
I’ll try to sort out the problem after 16 July, when I get back home.

I just confirmed it with Porf, he isn't a merit source. As for Vod, I have read somewhere in repu that he was a merit source once but later got removed. So for him that 0.5 ratio might be possible, but for porf it ain't. Anyway, forget about these trivial matters, and enjoy your holiday man. Nobody is going anywhere. Let them be MS for a bit,  until you come back and fix the calculations.

[philipma1957]

So I stumbled on this could someone do my score on this.

I am interested in it.

As I need to know my score for it. To make any comments on how good it is.

[Lucius]

~snip~
Let them be MS for a bit,  until you come back and fix the calculations.

As for me, that's probably the closest I'll ever get to it, but far from bothering me - I noticed a few other little things that aren't right, but we'll leave that for another time.


@philipma1957 -> https://brdbscoreapi.ace-d89.workers.dev/profile/64507

[philipma1957]

~snip~
Let them be MS for a bit,   until you come back and fix the calculations.

As for me, that's probably the closest I'll ever get to it, but far from bothering me - I noticed a few other little things that aren't right, but we'll leave that for another time.


@philipma1957 -> https://brdbscoreapi.ace-d89.workers.dev/profile/64507

Thank you.

I suspected the issue I was worried about , did what I thought it happened.

It is underscoring all og mining members that stayed active

Why do I say that.

I posted from Aug 2012 to 2018 and got the gifted 1000 merits.

Not that my ranking is terrible, but it does not reflect the 2012 to 2018 time I was here properly.

If those posts were subject to true merits when mining actually was available to almost everyone  I likely would have 20,000 merits rather than 12,000.



Aug 2012 to Feb 2018 1300 pages of posts ie 26,000 posts 1,000 gifted merits

Feb 2018 to July 2026 1400 pages  of post ie 28,000 posts 11,000 earned merits

Round numbers.

Since 2012 to 2018 mining was far far far far far more active then now.

I actually think that I could have earned more like 15,000 merits then rather than the 1,000 gifted.


Most people don’t realized that ck solo pool found by ck was in part created because I begged him to do it.

So I indirectly created pool solo mining.
Most people don’t realize that I did create 10 man pooled solo mining on ck pool more than 10 years ago.

Including a double block hit for 25+25 coins way back in the day.

Most people don’t realize how many 40,000 dollar group buys of cannan gear it did with zero issues shipping gear all over the USA and Europe.

But that is long past and forgotten.

In particular from cannan once the vp I dealt with left them.


Back to this rating system it’s a good idea I like it and my numbers are still pretty good

[TypoTonic]

If the ratio of Merits received to Merits sent was higher than 0.5, then the user was a Merit source, as a normal user cannot send more Merits than they receive.

You forgot to factor in the initial sMerit that users got from when the merit system was first implemented. Users who were at Legendary rank during that time had up to 400 sMerit at most.

The exact formula was:

Code:

yearActivity = activity in the last ~year, max 378
freeMerit = the merit (not sMerit) you started with
modifier =
  0.1 if member
  0.2 if full member
  0.25 if sr member
  0.35 if hero
  0.4 if legendary

return (yearActivity/378) * modifier * freeMerit

So the most you could get is if you were a Legendary who maxed out your activity points in the last year, in which case you would get 1 * 0.4 * 1000 = 400 sMerit.

You should adjust your formula based on this fact. If sentMerit > [(earnedMerit / 2) + 400], then the user is most likely a Merit source (or was one at some point, like in Vod's case).

[Lillominato89]

There is definitely a flaw in his formula, and he most likely failed to take certain aspects of the past into account. I would suggest he remove the badge and not make things complicated for himself; knowing whether or not a user is a source of merit isn't really that important. Some people might like knowing it, but others couldn't care less.

[fillippone]

There is definitely a flaw in his formula, and he most likely failed to take certain aspects of the past into account. I would suggest he remove the badge and not make things complicated for himself; knowing whether or not a user is a source of merit isn't really that important. Some people might like knowing it, but others couldn't care less.

Also, merit sources are not publicly known for a reason.
Some of us like to be known, some other don't.
It's a personal choice, so any tools trying to deanonimise the merit source list (there are many variants of those across the forum) should be treated with a pinch of salt.

[TypoTonic]

It's a personal choice, so any tools trying to deanonimise the merit source list (there are many variants of those across the forum) should be treated with a pinch of salt.

I'm sure that wasn't the intention of *Ace* when he added the MS badge. I think it was more to give recognition for the role that they have in the community.

Also, merit sources are not publicly known for a reason.
Some of us like to be known, some other don't.

Yes. But to be fair, the data is available publicly, and anyone can figure it out at some point if they want to. To quote theymos:

I will not be posting a definitive list of merit sources (so that people don't bug them too much), though you'll soon figure out who they are if you pay attention.

[Lillominato89]

There is definitely a flaw in his formula, and he most likely failed to take certain aspects of the past into account. I would suggest he remove the badge and not make things complicated for himself; knowing whether or not a user is a source of merit isn't really that important. Some people might like knowing it, but others couldn't care less.

Also, merit sources are not publicly known for a reason.
Some of us like to be known, some other don't.
It's a personal choice, so any tools trying to deanonimise the merit source list (there are many variants of those across the forum) should be treated with a pinch of salt.

That is why I am advising him to remove the badge.
Apart from the fact that the tool is incorrectly identifying some users as reliable Merit sources when this is not the case, many people might find it annoying.
Knowing *ace*, he certainly did it to show appreciation for reliable Merit sources.

[LoyceV]

It's a personal choice, so any tools trying to deanonimise the merit source list (there are many variants of those across the forum) should be treated with a pinch of salt.

I'm curious how many of the 86 Merit sources OP has identified.