Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
![]() |
World Community Grid Forums
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
No member browsing this thread |
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 78
|
![]() |
Author |
|
yoyo_rkn
Cruncher Germany Joined: Jan 14, 2006 Post Count: 17 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
It is an interesting ranking with this kind of race rules. Small teams are getting a better chance than big teams.
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
Mad Matt
Cruncher Joined: Sep 5, 2009 Post Count: 35 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
It is an interesting ranking with this kind of race rules. Small teams are getting a better chance than big teams. Time to say thank you to all the big teams who came to join even without having a big chance to increase their output dramatically. ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
|
Sid2
Senior Cruncher USA Joined: Jun 12, 2007 Post Count: 259 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
It is an interesting ranking with this kind of race rules. Small teams are getting a better chance than big teams. Time to say thank you to all the big teams who came to join even without having a big chance to increase their output dramatically. ![]() ![]() I believe that most anyone who crunches WCG, some of the most scientifically relevant projects that BOINC offers, does it for the science. . . . crunchers like this just make participating more fun! ![]() ![]() |
||
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
The charts by geopsychic are great. Not looked hard, but if sub-divied by recent credit average, there's good "handicap adjusted" competition possible.
----------------------------------------Crunch on.
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
That is a good idea. I will try recent average as well as team size to see what looks best.
|
||
|
Mad Matt
Cruncher Joined: Sep 5, 2009 Post Count: 35 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
That is a good idea. I will try recent average as well as team size to see what looks best. Please keep us posted, geopsychic. That was looking great! ![]() ![]() |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Team size and recent average basically produce similar groupings. Smaller teams have more volatility as you may expect, but with the exception of the extreme upticks there isn't a lot to distinguish the two groups.
----------------------------------------If anyone has a suggestion for a better way to display these, speak up. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Dec 5, 2010 2:31:45 AM] |
||
|
Crystal Pellet
Veteran Cruncher Joined: May 21, 2008 Post Count: 1322 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
If anyone has a suggestion for a better way to display these, speak up. Teams almost never crunching WCG have a big advantage in these 'increase' challenges opposite to teams with a basic frequent WCG-crunchers. Both groups should be awarded for their increase and in your graphs you could skip the teams without any increase. If I would release this formula - IF(TodayRAC-StartRAC>0;(TodayRAC-StartRAC)*Increase;0) - on the todays figures, the ranking would be: Pos Team Increase Now Start Challenge Points [Edit 3 times, last edit by Crystal Pellet at Dec 5, 2010 11:54:45 AM] |
||
|
Mad Matt
Cruncher Joined: Sep 5, 2009 Post Count: 35 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Sounds like a good suggestion, Crystal Pellet.
----------------------------------------![]() ![]() |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Interesting suggestion. I will have to poke around in my code a bit to automate this.
A few quick thoughts: Would it be better to use a running average of the challenge points? Without having checked, I think that this would make the volatility more extreme than the current percent increase. Allow negative values? Use the challenge points to determine the order on the graphs or plot them directly? It still leaves graph scale issues. |
||
|
|
![]() |