| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/04/2003 07:28:25 PM · #1 |
Just noticed it. When did this appear? Should be helpful for the stat counters ;P
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 07:30:16 PM · #2 |
:-) was just about to start the same thread ...
What is it? 100 - your placing/total entries? That simple?
Ed
edit: too late for me - I mean is it your placing expressed as a percentage of total entries?
Message edited by author 2003-12-04 19:32:48.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 07:33:01 PM · #3 |
Higher the # the higher you placed. Shows how your photo stands compared to others. Reminds me of the Standardized test back in school.
Check out Kiwinessresults now.
It would really cool to also see a percentile for all challenges also.
Message edited by author 2003-12-04 19:44:14.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 08:10:16 PM · #4 |
Cool, any one else have a 100% spread? I go from 0% all the way to 100%!
I don't think that is good. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 08:10:25 PM · #5 |
The formula should be:
100*(1-(place-1)/(N-1))
where N the number of entries and place is how your photo ranked (1 through N)
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 11:09:06 PM · #6 |
I like that percentiles are calculated and shown. It helps me guage my overall performance on the challenges, normalized for the number of entries in each.
I would think the next logical thing would be to calculate an average percentile for all the challenges entered and show that in the profile statistics. That would be the best way to truly guage trends over time; e.g. as you improve your average percentile would increase (unless everyone else improved more!) |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 11:17:48 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by JC Homola:
Cool, any one else have a 100% spread? I go from 0% all the way to 100%!
I don't think that is good. |
I go from 0 to 99. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 11:27:03 PM · #8 |
| I have 0-90. About 34 shows up with alarming frequency |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 11:32:52 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I have 0-90. About 34 shows up with alarming frequency |
I have 6 that are below 10%... ouch
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 11:47:14 PM · #10 |
| I seem to have about 34/139 at or below 10%. It is truly tragic to be so consistently misunderstood .... |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 11:52:37 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I seem to have about 34/139 at or below 10%. It is truly tragic to be so consistently misunderstood .... |
I'm so sorry.
True artists are usually not recognized until much later. You have that consolation. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 11:57:38 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by JC Homola:
I'm so sorry.
True artists are usually not recognized until much later. You have that consolation. |
Yeah, usually about two hours to two decades after they're dead ... |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 12:00:06 AM · #13 |
Damn that kiwiness got some nice numbers! I try to figure out the percentage on my shot placements but I feel kinda funny seing it on my profile. Maybe I wouldn't if I were kiwi, but I ain't.
Any thoughts as to why this made the addition while some of the other suggestions did not? I mean I'm not complaining by any means, saves me some math actually but more curious than anything.
I did like seeing the 80-percenter in my last challenge entry. Makes me feel like I made a HUGH jump!
Message edited by author 2003-12-05 00:01:27.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2003 12:04:38 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
Any thoughts as to why this made the addition while some of the other suggestions did not? I mean I'm not complaining by any means, saves me some math actually but more curious than anything. |
I'm guessing because the person who made the suggestion wrote the code needed to implement it, so it was easy .... |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 09:05:15 AM · #15 |
I sure do not like seeing it on mine.
Message edited by author 2003-12-05 09:09:28. |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 10:20:34 AM · #16 |
I suggested this a while ago; not sure if someone else has too. As kirbic showed, the maths behind it is very simple.
Basically it's just the "proportion of people I did better than" for that challenge.
To me it makes more sense than position, because coming 50th in an Open challenge is often better than coming 30th in a Members challenge, for example.
Message edited by author 2003-12-05 10:23:51. |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 10:28:43 AM · #17 |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 10:38:22 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The formula should be:
100*(1-(place-1)/(N-1))
where N the number of entries and place is how your photo ranked (1 through N) |
Acctually the formula should be 100*(N-place)/(N-1), this assures that the place 1 gets 100% and the last place 0%.
Would be cool if the average of all this percentiles would be given in the members statistic too. |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 10:44:26 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Harz_Joerg:
Originally posted by kirbic:
The formula should be:
100*(1-(place-1)/(N-1))
where N the number of entries and place is how your photo ranked (1 through N) |
Acctually the formula should be 100*(N-place)/(N-1), this assures that the place 1 gets 100% and the last place 0%.
Would be cool if the average of all this percentiles would be given in the members statistic too. |
Mathematically, our formulae are identical, but yours is simplified fully. Mine was not :(
|
|
|
|
12/05/2003 10:53:24 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
but yours is simplified fully. Mine was not :( |
Kirbic, you've let us all down.. I hope you feel suitably disappointed with yourself. ;-)))) |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 10:59:31 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
yours is simplified fully. Mine was not :( |
Yeah Kirbic, I'm not going to send you my maths homework to check anymore :-)))
|
|
|
|
12/05/2003 11:04:02 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Mathematically, our formulae are identical, but yours is simplified fully. Mine was not :( |
Not really: with your equation one gets negative percentage values, something nowbody deserves ;)
Edited: Damm, I didn't see one Bracket in your equation, so skip all my posts in this thread :(
Message edited by author 2003-12-05 11:06:17. |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 11:14:09 AM · #23 |
| Maybe that explains how one of my photos can rank 201st out of 199 entries. |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 11:21:41 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Maybe that explains how one of my photos can rank 201st out of 199 entries. |
You got robbed!!
You should have 2% for your submission, because there were 203 entries in the challenge.
I suggest that you immediatlly contact one of those "Site Councils" ;)
Edited:
Honestly: Just noticed that the places are set wrong also at "Book title" and "Still Life" (probably more): When one looks at last the picture its place is lower then the number of entries. Seems to be something wrong with the place-calculation algorithm!?
Message edited by author 2003-12-05 11:34:49. |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 12:51:28 PM · #25 |
Perhaps it is based on the number of entries at the beginning of voting instead of the number of entries at the end of voting, which is reduced by the number of entries DQ'ed.
Message edited by author 2003-12-05 12:52:07. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 01:43:38 PM EDT.
