Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Suggestion for MegaMilestones panel

  1. #1
    Senior Member MarkRBright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    153

    Lightbulb Suggestion for MegaMilestones panel

    I feels sure this has probably been suggested many times before, but I suppose just maybe it is too obvious - or too stupid - or horribly difficult - anyway, why is there not a column in the MegaMilestones for Country stats? RankC would fit in quite nicely, finish things off quite nicely too, and wouldn't take up much space. As far as I can see it probably wouldn't be harder to work out than RankT, (especially as you can be in different teams for different projects) and for many I would have thought it was more meaningful than Team stats.

    Also this could be a source of another 2 Mega Milestones if you wanted to go there and make that 30MM badge a possibility for some. If I called them CMiRBs and TMiRBs they won't need explaining - you could even have TeraCMiRBs and TeraTMiRBs!
    Needless to say anything that gives people any incentive to Boinc more has to be a good thing.

  2. #2
    Administrator Bok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wake Forest, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    22,120
    Blog Entries
    13
    It's doable, would require some table changes as well as the code though. I'll think on it.

  3. #3
    Senior Member MarkRBright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    153
    I can't ask for more than that. Thanks.

  4. #4
    Administrator Bok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wake Forest, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    22,120
    Blog Entries
    13
    I haven't forgotten about this at all.

    I added the table columns in and have updated the script which populates them all. I need to do some additional coding to populate the country accurately using the 'overall' country of a user as they may have multiple countries spread throughout their userids on different projects. Already have that table populated for the combined scores anyway.

    Should have this in place next week.

  5. #5
    Administrator Bok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wake Forest, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    22,120
    Blog Entries
    13
    or even today

  6. #6
    Senior Member MarkRBright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    153
    Wow! that looks great, and fits in so nicely I found myself wondering if it had been there all along! Excellent bit of work - Thank you.
    Are you going to go ahead with the additional MegaMilestones too? They would give more people more things to go for which has to be good for BOINC!

  7. #7
    Administrator Bok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wake Forest, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    22,120
    Blog Entries
    13
    I'm still not totally clear what the new MM's would be? Just top10 in your country?

    It could be faked a little if someone just changed all their countries to Kiribati or something like that.. still..

  8. #8
    Senior Member MarkRBright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    153
    Initially I had thought just do what you did with MiRBs and TeraMiRBs for Countries and Teams, ie Top 1000 and top 100 for each category, but I think it is clearly quite easy to get top 1000 in either, and I can't see why it should it be harder to get rewarded in the US or Germany or any country where BOINC is more popular. Similarly with teams but even more so!

    Perhaps a Country variation of a MiRB (a CMiRB?) and a Team variation (a TMiRB?) would work better if it were percentage related rather than number related? e.g. in the top 10% of the number of BOINCers in that category? That way you would at least have to have 10 BOINCers in Kiribati or 9 others in your team AND you have to be number 1 in order to get a CMiRB for it, and perhaps a TeraCMiRB and TeraTMiRB would be in the top 1%. It would be a bit tough on the genuine Kiribati folk as they would need to have 100 BOINCERS for one of them to get a TeraCMiRB, but that sounds fair enough, the more people in the group/country the more MiRB's are possible.

    i.e. Rank% = ( Ranking / Population ) x 100 Then just test for Rank% being <= 10 for a TMiRB or a CMiRB, and <= 1 for a TeraTMiRB or TeraCMiRB.

    I really don't know, but now that I can see the numbers it seems that some MMs should be made out of them. What do you think?

  9. #9
    Senior Member MarkRBright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    153
    Hi Bok
    Not sure if this is related to any changes you are making or not, but I have just noticed that I have lost a MiRB and a TeraMiRB despite the numbers clearly totalling to one more - and no, I have discounted the total for MiRBs themselves.
    In my stats I should have a TeraMiRB for Boks, TeraBoks and Trigggls, but the total shows 2. This isn't an overnight stats-haven't-caught-up-yet sort of thing, it was the same yesterday. The same is true of MiRBs, I count 18 below 1000's in RankP, knock off the one for the MiRB's itself and I should have 17, but it shows 16. Pretty sure this started 2 days ago.
    Thanks as ever
    Mark

  10. #10
    Administrator Bok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wake Forest, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    22,120
    Blog Entries
    13
    probably is related the mirb/teramirb change I did the other day - I wasn't 100% on whether it was correct, this will help to debug though.

  11. #11
    Administrator Bok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wake Forest, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    22,120
    Blog Entries
    13
    You should have 3 teramirbs again, that was related. trigggls were set incorrectly as a team MM, so were not being counted.

    As for mirbs, well mirbs themselves do NOT count but perhaps teramirbs should count, can't have it both ways as one has to be computed before the other though. I changed it round so teramirbs are before mirbs and you have 17 again.

  12. #12
    Senior Member MarkRBright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    153
    That's great thanks - yes it all looks fine again now. Have you decided whether or not to go with the PMiRBs, CMiRBs and thier Tera variations suggestion?

  13. #13
    Administrator Bok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wake Forest, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    22,120
    Blog Entries
    13
    I haven't. In fact I need a recap.

    Been working on some RPC scripts to pull data for projects that do NOT export xml - see my cpid page !

  14. #14
    Senior Member MarkRBright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    153
    Do you mean you want me to recap it? Or should I just shut up and go away ;-)

  15. #15
    Administrator Bok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wake Forest, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    22,120
    Blog Entries
    13
    sure, recap it

  16. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Davis, California // Beni Mekkoud, Morocco
    Posts
    27
    If we, meaning Free-DC, does add CMiRBs and TeraCMiRBs (the P variants already exist), may I suggest that the each of the categories mutually exclude all of the other "MiRB" categories. No contemplating the fact that my P variant is gaining one due to my C variant within range. Nor issues of which came first in the database, e.g., PMiRB is first and gains nothing, TeraPMiRB gains one for the PMiRB for coming second, next the CMiRB gains two for the two P variants that came before, and lastly the TeraCMiRB gaining three for being last in the list. [This is then followed by some number junky, like myself, saying, "Hey, wait the P variants should come last as they are more important than the C variants."]

    Edit: I see I confused myself even as I left out the T variants.





    [For what it is worth I do think that the TeraBoks should be above the 1M Milestones, but I digress.]
    Last edited by Werinbert; 08-15-2014 at 06:06 PM. Reason: T is for "Think before you write."

  17. #17
    Senior Member MarkRBright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    153
    OK So the idea is simple. We already have MiRB's (Top 1000) and TeraMiRBs (Top 100), and I think they are fine as they are, other than for some clarity due to what follows they could be renamed to PMiRBs and TeraPMiRBs - We could pronounce them MiRBs and just claim that the P is silent ;-)

    To do the same for both Countries and Teams would be both great and logical given the information you have and are displaying, but also potentially a little contentious as the numbers of possible contenders in both a Team and a Country is dramatically reduced when compared to all Boincers, and also the sizes of Countries and Teams vary enormously.

    So my suggestion is that should you be in the top 10% of your Country's Boinc population or of your Team membership, for any given MM category, then you should get a CMiRB or TMiRB for that category, and the top 1% for a TeraCMiRB and a TeraTMiRB. Just to be clear here, if you are for example the only member of a Team, then your rank for each MM that you had gained, would be 1, giving you a percentage of 100, which exceeds both 1% and 10%, hence no TMiRB or TeraTMiRB. I am tempted to suggest taking this a step further and not even bother to calculate C/TMiRBs where the number of members/population is less than 100.

    There is a problem with using percentages, in that it could be very difficult for someone to see at a glance where the number of C/TMiRBs came from, as you can't just scan down the list looking for numbers less than 1000 or 100 as you currently can with PMiRBs/TeraPMiRBs. It would help to put the total number of Team Members next to the team name, and total number of Country Members next to the country at the top of the screen, or maybe doing it like you currently do with the Overall Rank would be even better. But there is another issue here that is problematic. What do you calculate the rank as a percentage of? Do you calculate the new C/TMiRB by taking the current persons rank as a percentage of the current number of people in the Team or Country who have also achieved a rank? OR, do you just use the total number of people in that Team or Country? I think for simplicity you have to go for the latter, as there is no visibility of the data required to calculate the former, unless you change things to give out a whole bunch of information out that I suspect nobody really wants to know! But if you change the header information to show the total numbers in the group and country, which is nice information anyway. and as you now show their rank, then they can in fact calculate their own percentage if they want to, thereby avoiding a potentially unending list of questions to the forum of the "Why have I not got a C/TMiRB?" variety. On top of that and probably an even better reason from your point of view is that it is simpler to calculate, a you would be using the same number as the denominator each time rather than having a different one for each MM.

    Going back to the arbitrary mandatory number of members, it is probably fairly pointless other than to save some time doing calculations. Consider not having a minimum requirement. If for example, there are less than say 99 members of a Team and you were in rank position 1, then the way I have defined it, it is impossible to get a TeraTMiRB anyway as (1/99)x100 > 1, yet you can get a TMiRBs for ranks 1-9. If there are only 10 members then only the guy in rank 1 would get a TMiRB and it would still be impossible to get a TeraTMiRB. Obviously the bigger the teams membership, the more TMiRBs and TeraTMiRBs would be given.

    So that is it, I think it would work, would be logical, would provide additional targets which would encourage people to go for them, they are easier to achieve than Maxwells, which are now a preserve of the very very few. They shouldn't cause millions of questions to flood the forums, as with an additional very small change Boincers would be able to calculate them themselves, and they are scalable in the sense that big teams/countries get far more than small ones, who may get none if too small.

    The big question is "Is it too much work?" or perhaps "Do you want to do it?"

    BTW I am pretty sure I agree with Werinbert's comments, but I just find the thought too confusing to work through! If it turns out to be too confusing to code for then I suspect an extra MiRB here or there might not do anyone any harm, and it might be easier to not code for in the interests of avoiding the "Why did I only get 14 TMiRBs when I think I should have gotten 15?" type forum questions.

    OK Enough! That's my longer than original suggestion recap for today

  18. #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    27
    Based on the progression of Free-DC's lower level Mega Milestones; 1K-2.5K, 10K-25K,1M-2,5M, 10M-25M, etc., shouldn't there be a 2.5 billion milestone? I hit one a few days ago, and expected to see one, but alas, nothing is showing up. Not a big deal, Free-DC does a great job, but thought you might not have noticed. Thanks, Rick

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •