Printable View
Is it just me or have MikeH's sieving and factoring scores stopped being updated?
Last update on the main scores page was 26. december and diffrent sub-pages were last updated even longer back.
Anyways I like the way it is now ... then I can keep my spot as no. 10 that I am otherwise probably going to loose ;)
Humm,
The history file and dat's are not updating either, I wonder if his machine :trash: and he hasn't been around to restart.
It's not like mike to ignore things like this, no pressure, I guess it just goes to show how much everyone values Mikes efforts.
remember many of us are not home for the holidays. My guess is he's visiting relatives and it'll be back up after new year.
That's also my guess.Quote:
Originally posted by Keroberts1
remember many of us are not home for the holidays. My guess is he's visiting relatives and it'll be back up after new year.
Mike is doing a great job ... actually I have many times been thinking about copying his way of making a dynamic web-page to some of my own little project... I do admire his work greatly.
So thumps up to Mike from here, you are doing an excellent job.
And were rolling again :rotfl:
however it seems that the update is a bit out of schedule, but never mind.
And I kept my spot as no. 10 (for now).
Sorry guys. I was away with family. PC hadn't crashed, but new router installed on Christmas Eve introduced some unexpected problems.
Anyhow, I think it's all sorted (except that I came to this PC just a few minutes ago only to find it had crashed, but that’s as likely to be something to do with one of my kids playing Half Life or BF1942).:swear:
Now that a new year is upon us, I thought that maybe it's time for a new challenge. There'll soon be a new set of pages that relate only to factors found during 2005. All the old pages will continue, but I figure this should give all the new heavy weights something serious to aim at. I should have something available in the next few days.
Great idea.Quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
Now that a new year is upon us, I thought that maybe it's time for a new challenge. There'll soon be a new set of pages that relate only to factors found during 2005. All the old pages will continue, but I figure this should give all the new heavy weights something serious to aim at. I should have something available in the next few days.
Hey maybe we'll have a chance of competing with the the great MikeH there :notworthy
Mike,
Just a half baked thought for you to consider,
How about a column of tests saved, you would still have the factors everything like it is now, but one a factor enters the active range a person could get creditied with 1.5 prp tests...
It would sort of give non-sievers p-1'er a comparison to their personal stats.
Or if you really wanted to do this differently.
0.5 tests for every factor,
and additional 1 test once for a factor entering a first pass window
0.5 tests for every factor entering double check.
Might be more effort than it's worth but something cool and different.
The 2005 (d'oh) stats are still in a bit of a rough and ready state, but they can be seen here.
The basic user, team, project and individual user stuff are working. All the averages seem not to be working, it'll either sort itself out or its "work in progress".
The dublicates and excludeds will always read zero since I don't record a date found against these, so I don't know which are old and which new. Anyhow this is just good honest unique factors.
May the fight begin...:fight: :cheers:
I am the most pleased of all to see that I am NOT on the top spot. :|party|:
(links corrected)
You probably mean 2005?Quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
The 2004 stats are still in a bit of a rough and ready state, but they can be seen here.
Some more suggestions Mike, If it's still a work in progress ...
1. Why don't you change the p<3T and P>3T to P<500T and P>500T
And possibly including the old factors without score not sure...
At least this way it will show how much work was done in the past for reference purposes.
2. I'd also suggest changing the 3m reference to 8m (Roughly current prp), how many new users really understand why 3m? (I.E. old dual range effort)
3. Also thanks for the forsite of including n>20m :whistle: :sack:
4. Also is it possible to include team affilations? :Pokes:
Regardless just some suggestions that I'm sure will come up...
Thanks for all your great work last year it was really appreciated. :cheers:
As I understand it the old stats are still going to be running, so I don't see any reason for including "old factors" to our new little competition here.Quote:
Originally posted by vjs
And possibly including the old factors without score not sure...
At least this way it will show how much work was done in the past for reference purposes.
Kicking my box a bit ... give me some factors here.
I guess I should have waited with reporting the bunch I had in my last P-1 range to after newyear ;)
Sorry for my misunderstanding I didn't realize Mike was going to run these in parrallel.
Good idea. Just so it's not arbitrary, I'll set it to the declared lowest completed point, which at the beginning of the year was 330T.Quote:
1. Why don't you change the p<3T and P>3T to P<500T and P>500T
And possibly including the old factors without score not sure...
At least this way it will show how much work was done in the past for reference purposes.
I was kind-of thinking the same thing - the whole 3M reference is now pointless, but I have a different idea for change, which I intend to implement for 'all time' and '2005' scores. I will categorise by number of PRP tests saved (2, 1 or 0). Since that was kind-of what the n=3M point meant when this started, and it's one bit of info that's not currently displayed it seems like the logical choice to me.Quote:
2. I'd also suggest changing the 3m reference to 8m (Roughly current prp), how many new users really understand why 3m? (I.E. old dual range effort)
I'm winning! :p Yay!!! :|party|: :|party|: :|party|:
It's so cool to be in the #1 position. :)
And also, about the factors found/estimated total stat at project page. I guess it would be a good idea to change the figures for remaining 10 ks only...
BTW, as far as I understand it, 2005 page will not credit factors submitted before 2005, right? Then, it's highly likely that P-1 will get a significant boost with the 2005 scores page.. :D
What did you have in mind?Quote:
4. Also is it possible to include team affilations?
I'm thinking on the teams pageQuote:
What did you have in mind?
http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/scores_t.htm
each team could have a clickable link for the team itself like the user in the users page.
http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/scores.htm
If you clicked on the team it could report all of those people contained on the team..
If you clicked on TeamPrimeRib team=81
You would get a list like
http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/scores_t.htm
however only those team members would be included.
Not sure how hard this would be since you only use user number
http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/ui/5202.htm (myself)
But somehow you are calculating team scores?
I think it would create a little more team competition etc... I really don't know who is sieveing on my team without quite some effort I belive it's only.
VJS
Joe_O
Rychek
Minbari
Shoelace
David7091
Levitate
Garo
Antiroach
Monsoon
KMD
Stricker
Koekie
Also may I suggest a slight order modification
FacU ( %), FacD, n<3M, 3M<n<20M, n>20M, Excluded
to
FacU ( %), n<3M, 3M<n<20M, n>20M, FacD, Excluded
Since
FacU ( %) = n<3M + 3M<n<20M + n>20M
O.K. now I'm just nit picking... :(
MikeH,
A little off topic but I've been wanting to ask you this question for months. Why is the 300K<n<3M range still showing incomplete in my sieve stats. I have completed the reserved range for months. If it is b/c of lack of time, I fully understand and won't even whisper about it again. Thanks:) :) :)
BTW, did anybody reminded you lately that you are doing a great job.:cheers:
e:)
Mike has stated before that this is the only portion that's not automated, so it take his personal time etc.
And Yes we always mention what a great job he's doing...
Let's translate
"Mike your really doing a great job" = "It's easier for me to type it than you to do it, but I'll type it anyways" :D :D :D
I know I ask alot too.
MikeH,
Thanks for updating the web pages, appreciate it.:D
Back to my hole.:blush:
BTW, you ARE doing a great job. Thanks again.:cheers:
e:)
