From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21731 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2004 12:40:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21387 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2004 12:39:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailfe01.swip.net) (212.247.154.1) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2004 12:39:54 -0000 X-T2-Posting-ID: acesPao/7XUisZxL6cesKg== Received: from [213.100.41.61] (HELO [192.168.0.46]) by mailfe01.swip.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.6) with ESMTP id 231422456 for xconq7@sources.redhat.com; Sat, 04 Dec 2004 13:39:49 +0100 From: Erik To: xconq7@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Xconq-general] Xconq Ranking at Sourceforge Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 13:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <20041203173156.24046.qmail@web13125.mail.yahoo.com> <41B1078E.4030508@phy.cmich.edu> In-Reply-To: <41B1078E.4030508@phy.cmich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200412041339.02982.freeciv@home.se> X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg01459.txt.bz2 l=F6rdag 04 december 2004 01.40 skrev Eric McDonald: > 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 =3D 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. When I saw that formula it was obvious to me that it does not weight the=20 data. Since I found that strange I searched for the documentation. And it=20 says: "We are aware that the current formula does not actually weight the=20 data aggregated for rankings (the formula was misdesigned and has not yet=20 been replaced)." [http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=3D14040&group_id=3D1]