This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: [Xconq-general] Xconq Ranking at Sourceforge
- From: Elijah Meeks <elijahmeeks at yahoo dot com>
- To: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- Cc: xconq7 <xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com>, xconq-general at lists dot sourceforge dot net
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:50:37 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: [Xconq-general] Xconq Ranking at Sourceforge
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