Re: [Xconq-general] Xconq Ranking at Sourceforge

[Elijah Meeks <elijahmeeks@yahoo.com>]

You hackers and your willingness to delve into how
functions work...

I agree with your focus on making a good game over
winning a beauty pageant.  Still, it's nice to be
popular, hopefully that will bring more than just
end-users.  I can only imagine how much attention
we'll get with 7.5 (Which I plan on promoting on every
website I can find...).  

Oh, and it's good to know my constant
feature-requesting does some good.

Elijah

--- Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu> wrote:

> Elijah Meeks wrote:
> 
> > Though I'm extremely proud of this, I wonder if
> it's a
> > glitch. 
> 
> It could be. Sourceforge has said that they are
> experiencing some 
> problems with the rankings system. However, take
> Bochs for example; 
> although they outclass us in page views and
> downloads, their tracker 
> activity is relatively low. Tracker activity is
> factored into the rankings.
> 
> >I'd like to see the system sf.net uses to
> > determine percentile.
> 
> To quote Sourceforge docs:
> 
> "The current project rankings formula is as follows:
> 
> log (3 * # of forum posts for that week) + log (4 *
> # of tasks ftw) + 
> log (3 * # bugs ftw) + log (10 * patches ftw) + log
> (5 * tracker items 
> ftw) + log (# commits to CVS ftw) + log (5 * # file
> releases ftw) + log 
> (.3 * # downloads ftw)"
> 
> As you can see, downloads are dropped to 3/10 of
> their value, but 
> tracker items are multiplied by 5 and patches by 10.
> Since logs 
> (presumably base-10) are being taken, an order of
> magnitude will only 
> vary by 1. If Bochs' downloads are 100 times more
> than ours, their score 
> only gains 2 over ours. By contrast, we had 3
> patches in the past week, 
> and 3*10 = 30, so our score gained 1.x for that.
> Plus, we had 3 new 
> tasks, so our score gained 1.y for that. So, with
> those two terms alone 
> we could hypothetically close the gap.
> 
> That said, and as I have mentioned to you in private
> email, I do not 
> suspect that this is sustainable. And, I am more
> interested in 
> developing a good game than in getting good rankings
> on SF. Things will 
> continue to fluctuate, probably wildly. Next week,
> we could be back to 
> hanging out around 400 or 500 again. Big deal.
> Development continues.
> 
> I only mentioned the ranking yesterday because I
> think it reflects well 
> on our project; tracker activity indicates vitality
> (but not necessarily 
> popularity).
> 
> Eric
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail