Hello Xconquerors, For those wondering how their favorite TBS game is faring at Sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/top/mostactive.php?type=week&offset=50 We're hanging out with Bochs, and that's good company to keep. We'll have to see what happens after we announce major bugfixes and performance improvements in the next file release. :-) (I imagine the climb starts to get tough above #30 or so.) Regards, Eric P.S. In case someone looks at the rankings after they have changed, we were listed at #77 out of 91736 registered projects.
Hey Eric, Though I'm extremely proud of this, I wonder if it's a glitch. Everyone else in the top hundred is receiving a couple thousand (At least) hits a day and many of them are also getting a couple thousand downloads a day. I'd like to see the system sf.net uses to determine percentile. Maybe it has something to do with the foundry we're in or the size of the downloads... Still, I only expect XConq to grow in popularity. --- Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu> wrote: > Hello Xconquerors, > > For those wondering how their favorite TBS game is > faring at Sourceforge: > > http://sourceforge.net/top/mostactive.php?type=week&offset=50 > > We're hanging out with Bochs, and that's good > company to keep. > We'll have to see what happens after we announce > major bugfixes and > performance improvements in the next file release. > :-) > > (I imagine the climb starts to get tough above #30 > or so.) > > Regards, > Eric > > P.S. In case someone looks at the rankings after > they have changed, we > were listed at #77 out of 91736 registered projects. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT > Products from real users. > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. > Start reading now. > http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Xconq-general mailing list > Xconq-general@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xconq-general > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
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
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
lördag 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 = 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 data. Since I found that strange I searched for the documentation. And it says: "We are aware that the current formula does not actually weight the data aggregated for rankings (the formula was misdesigned and has not yet been replaced)." [http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=14040&group_id=1]
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Erik wrote: > > 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)" > When I saw that formula it was obvious to me that it does not weight the > data. Since I found that strange I searched for the documentation. And it > says: "We are aware that the current formula does not actually weight the I wondered about that, too. Having the multiplications inside the logs means that outside the logs they're the same thing as just adding a constant. However, if the formula were "fixed" in the obvious way, by moving the multiplications outside the logs, then I think it would favour us even more strongly. -- Matthew Skala mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca Embrace and defend. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/
Erik wrote:
> When I saw that formula it was obvious to me that it does not weight the
> data. Since I found that strange I searched for the documentation. And it
> says: "We are aware that the current formula does not actually weight the
> data aggregated for rankings (the formula was misdesigned and has not yet
> been replaced)."
>
> [http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=14040&group_id=1]
Well yes, I saw that too; it is the document from which I quoted in my
previous message. I wasn't offering a critique on the relative merits or
flaws of the existing formula. I was just explaining how it is that we
ended up with the ranking we did. I think it would be understandable if
another project was a bit annoyed because it had 100 times the downloads
but was active in fewer of the areas that logs are taken of. And, as
Matthew points out in the next message in this thread, the
multiplicative factors inside the logs are the same as adding small
constants outside the logs; definitely not a good "weighting" scheme.
Eric
P.S. The Sourceforge expression is actually a bit simplified, since
log(0) must be avoided. Thus it is not a pure formula, but some logical
selection must be occurring as well. The other thing to note is that
projects that have between 1 and 3, inclusive, new downloads per week
would seem to be actually penalized in the scoring, unless there is
logic that says to apply the downloads calculation for only those
projects with 4 or more downloads per week.