| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Destroy96
Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 3
|
 Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 2:19 am Post subject: Cut-Off system did not except proof of 4-star score that... |
 |
|
Cut-Off system did not except proof of 4-star score that is higher than the current posted lowest 5-star.
I tried to post a score of 102143 for Callout on Medium with 4 stars and received this message: Error: Your score is outside of the current 5-star cutoff range (101,335 - 102,111).
The 102,111 score must be wrong (no image posted).
Cheers,
Aaron |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JCirri
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 4576
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've updated the upper bound to 102,144. Try submitting the proof again.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Destroy96
Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Submitted, thanks.
I just noticed that there is another 4-star listed in the rankings as 104,682. And, the lowest 5-star is 105,695.
Peace,
-Aaron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fatespeaks
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 41
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:55 pm Post subject: I have proof of a higher 4 star score |
|
|
http://home.comcast.net/~scorehero/A238_105544_4087_258.jpg
Medium - Callout - 4 star - 105544
The stats system has a 5 star score of 102144, without an image, and will not let me update.
Peace,
Aaron
(Destroy96 is actually my son.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Riff
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 104
Location: Champaign, IL
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Geez Louise. This wouldn't be so bad if the 5-star cutoff for Callout wasn't marked as confirmed. Here all this time I've been wondering why the hell my base score estimate is off by 1154 points. With 105544 being a 4-star, my estimate is now likely to be correct. The lowest 5-star value should be 105606. I would avoid marking cutoffs as verified when the spread is one point if only one of the bounds has photo verification.
Update: I now have photo proof of 105601 with a four star rating and 105606 with a five star rating. I confindent that my base score estimate of 35202 is correct as neither 105602 nor 10604 are evenly divisible by three.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JCirri
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 4576
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:51 am Post subject: Re: I have proof of a higher 4 star score |
|
|
Go ahead and submit the proofs, I've changed the bounds.
| Riff wrote: | | I would avoid marking cutoffs as verified when the spread is one point if only one of the bounds has photo verification. |
The problem is that the system only accepts proof within the shown range and when the range is narrowed down to 1 point then no more proof can be accepted and therefore the cutoff must be marked as verified. If there is any incorrect non-photo proof then just let me know and I'll fix it as I've done, but I don't anticipate there being too many incorrect values.
_________________
Last edited by JCirri on Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Echelar 
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 1246
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
You could potentially allow proof to be submitted equal to one of the existing values, but only if the old one has no pic and the new one does.
Probably not a big deal to leave it, though.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fatespeaks
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 41
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Riff wrote: | | I confindent that my base score estimate of 35202 is correct as neither 105602 nor 10604 are evenly divisible by three. |
What if 35201 is the base score? Then 105603 could be a 5 star score.
This brings to mind an interesting idea for the song stats system. If we know and accept that the 4 star cutoff is 2 times the base score, and the 5 star cutoff is three times the base score, then either cutoff can be confirmed given the other. In this case a photo proof of any of the following scores should determine if the base score is 35201 or 35202:
(3 stars >= 70402) OR (4 stars >= 105603) would prove a base of 35202
(4 stars <= 70401) OR (5 stars <= 105602) would prove a base of 35201
That said, have you considered tying the 4-star and 5-star systems together such that a post to either boundry would update both?
For any random song, a 3-star proof of 49,998 would corrospond to a base of at least 25,000. Therefore upper bound of the 3-star range is at least 49,999 and the upper bound of the 4-star range is at least 74,999.
Once approved by the moderators, the 49,998 score would be logged as both a 3-star 49,999 proof and a 4-star 74,999 proof.
Now I need to stop thinkg about this and go finish my homework.
Later all,
-Aaron
_________________
The guy wouldn’t know majesty if it came up and bit him in the face.
Last edited by fatespeaks on Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JCirri
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 4576
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fatespeaks wrote: | | That said, have you considered tying the 4-star and 5-star systems together such that a post to either boundry would update both? |
I have. I was just discussing this with Echelar the other day and I think I will be updating the proof system to update both cutoff ranges accordingly everytime a proof is approved.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Riff
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 104
Location: Champaign, IL
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fatespeaks wrote: | | What if 35201 is the base score? Then 105603 could be a 5 star score. |
I realized that after I posted my message that 105606 might not be guaranteed to be the correct cutoff because 5-star cutoffs are not guaranteed to be even numbers. Still, out of the remaining possible base scores, my estimate will either be correct or it will be greater than the actual base score by a single point. If my estimate is off by one point then I'm not too concerned at the moment as there are songs that have much greater error. So far, all of my errornous estimates are less than the actual corresponding base scores and so it is still extremely likely that 105606 will be the correct 5-star cutoff for Callout on medium.
| fatespeaks wrote: | That said, have you considered tying the 4-star and 5-star systems together such that a post to either boundry would update both?
Once approved by the moderators, the 49,998 score would be logged as both a 3-star 49,999 proof and a 4-star 74,999 proof. |
I've used the 5-star cutoffs to narrow down the 4-star cutoffs and vice versa. I think there should be estimated cutoff bounds fields added for each song that get displayed separately from the proven cutoff bounds. If there are separate fields then there will be no problem with updating the estimated bounds using both 4-star and 5-star data. If this is not done then I can see some problems, or at least some possibilities that I don't like. First of all, I think it is a safe assumption that 4-star cutoffs and 5-star cutoffs are integer multiples of an integer base score but it is still an assumption. For all we know base scores are fractional and it just happens to be a fluke that all proven cutoffs are 2x and 3x times their base scores. Second, it may seem trivial but it would be much nicer to have photos of the actual cutoff bounds for each rating. Finally, what happens when there is photo proof for a 4-star cutoff upper bound and then someone submits a 5-star cutoff bounding value without a photo and that would decrease the 4-star cutoff upper bound? Do you decrease the 4-star upper bound and remove the link to the old proof? Do you replace that person's name in the current proof field even though the previous person had a photo and was arguably more diligient? What about submitted cutoff bounds without proof that are incorrect? Allowing submissions without photos may double the pain if the submitted scores are incorrect.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JCirri
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 4576
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Riff wrote: | | If there are separate fields then there will be no problem with updating the estimated bounds using both 4-star and 5-star data. If this is not done then I can see some problems, or at least some possibilities that I don't like. |
I can see your point, but I feel for the less technical users this would make things too complicated. If you're interested in seeing the proven bounds from photo proof you can always view the history of submitted proofs for any given song.
| Riff wrote: | | First of all, I think it is a safe assumption that 4-star cutoffs and 5-star cutoffs are integer multiples of an integer base score but it is still an assumption. For all we know base scores are fractional and it just happens to be a fluke that all proven cutoffs are 2x and 3x times their base scores. |
Even though it is probably a safe assumption, I don't need to assume the base score is an integer. I would round the calculations in the most conservative direction to ensure the updated bounds do not conflict with the actual cutoff.
| Riff wrote: | | Second, it may seem trivial but it would be much nicer to have photos of the actual cutoff bounds for each rating. |
You're right. Now that I'll be updating both bounds simulataneously, I'll have to change the system to still allow proof for the listed bounds, and only mark it as proven when photo proof exists for both bounds.
| Riff wrote: | | Finally, what happens when there is photo proof for a 4-star cutoff upper bound and then someone submits a 5-star cutoff bounding value without a photo and that would decrease the 4-star cutoff upper bound? Do you decrease the 4-star upper bound and remove the link to the old proof? Do you replace that person's name in the current proof field even though the previous person had a photo and was arguably more diligient? What about submitted cutoff bounds without proof that are incorrect? Allowing submissions without photos may double the pain if the submitted scores are incorrect. |
In most cases I don't allow submissions of proof without photos unless the user posts in my forum topic for non-photo proof at which time I make a decision whether to allow it or not based on how long the user has been a member, and how trustworthy his/her scores have been. If I allow the proof (meaning I'm fairly confident it's not false), then I simply update the bounds manually and the user's name does not appear in the table for "current proof by". So in your example, yes it would remove the name of the user who submitted the upper 5-star bound. But if by chance a bound is later proven to be false, I can always reset the bound back to the last known photo proof which is kept in history and the user's name and link to the photo would automatically be restored (it dynamically detects this information from the current bounds and submitted proofs).
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
