Prank and Rankem

OK Prank and Rankem are the two silly names I have come up with for two new suggestions for MegaMilestones.
They are both very straightforward. Prank is the Average of all Project AND Subproject ranks and Rankem is the Average of all MegaMilestone Ranks. So obviously the lower the number the better in both cases.

To be specific Prank is (total ranks of ALL Projects + the total ranks of all SubProjects) / (The total number of Projects + The total number of Subprojects). Mine is currently 5222 for what that is worth. I suppose there is an argument for doing some kind of normalising of the data, as in my case my rank of 273593 in Seti somewhat distorts this, but I could of course choose to do something about that and run Seti for a month or two.

Clearly there could be some debate as to whether or not a Project made of Subprojects should effectively be counted twice, but debate is good! For me, keep it simple and count them both.

Being specific again, Rankem is the total of all Ranks in the MM table divided by the total number of items in the table. I leave it to you to decide if things that someone has that aren't shown in the table are included. I suspect they should be just for the mystery, intrigue and frustration from those who think they have it pinned down. Again, for what it is worth my current value of Rankem would be 362, something about which I am immensely proud ;-)

Two further thoughts on Prank and Rankem.
I just realised that being all about ranks, Prank and Rankem would probably have to be excluded from Squarepants. In these cases the lower the value the better, so for example, new Boincers would tend to get a huge value up Rankem and Prank. Unless someone can think of a sensible way of inverting the score?
My other thought relates to those potentially huge values of Prank. Perhaps if the maths isn't too problematic, then the highest Project/SubProject rank (or maybe the highest n% of ranks) could be ignored so as to effectively not 'punish' someone for taking up new projects/subprojects.

LOL Well I still think this is a good idea!

I did think about this a little. Ranking across both projects and subprojects is a little more convoluted as they are in distinct tables. But I did construct some sql for just projects or just subprojects, even discarding highest and lowest so it is doable

Code:

---

MariaDB [static]> select avg(projrank0) from dcfree.boinc_user where cpid = 'fa1a611d7c2bb42d13617eb6b8903f8c';                               
+----------------+
| avg(projrank0) |
+----------------+
|      3298.3542 |
+----------------+
1 row in set (0.02 sec)


MariaDB [static]> select (sum(projrank0) - max(projrank0) - min(projrank0)) / (count(projrank0) - 2) as average from dcfree.boinc_user where cpid = 'fa1a611d7c2bb42d13617eb6b8903f8c';
+-----------+
| average  |
+-----------+
| 2479.9255 |
+-----------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)

---

I can't help but think it is almost pointless to discard the lowest, as in my case the highest is 83484 and the lowest is 47. I know which one has a bigger impact on my end results ;-)

BUT ... I have no idea if I am a better person for knowing those numbers or not. I almost need to see where I sit on a league table of them in order to see where you stand in the grand scheme of things - which of course I don't because the number says it all.

I kind of think it's probably not worth the effort you would need to go to to display the results. Especially as a smaller number is better compared to a bigger one, which is a little unusual if it were to be shown on the MM table.
Possibly they would sit quite well in the Summary section of the main User by CPID Stats screen, but I am thinking "Meh!" Maybe it wasn't such a good idea.