Sitescore adjustments

I adjusted the base-score for 3 sites:

Yashira scores 4000 now (old value 2000)
Brainquest scores 3000 now (old value 2000)
infomirmo scores 3000 now (old value 2000)

We might soon start a rescoring of all sites with user votes as suggestive values.
Note that the sitevotes will not affect the decisions, there will be a seperate voting for adjusting the scores.

Happy Challenging
Gizmore

-5 places
Oh well...

It's a very good idea

I think that the number of chall must count in the base-score.
1 chall of TBS count less than 1 chall of any other chall, i think it's a little unfair. Isn't it ?

Yes the scoring is kinda unfair imho, and we urgently need to rescore sites better.

How about the following way to rescore the sites ?

-----------------------------------------------------------
Put a poll at each site comments, where all members can vote what the score should be.
Maybe 5 score options are ok. 5000, 8000, 10000, 12000, 15000.

We should vote for each site this way, and decide afterwards which site gets how much points.

I think it might be more accurate to let the users vote than a formula.
Of course the sitescore should only depend on the challenges...
amount, difficulty, work involved.

For the non-english sites we should settle a smaller malus from 0% to 25% (currently its like 50%).

All in all we really need to adjust scores to make it more fair.

The final rescoring will be decided by the Admins and Beta-Testers.

Of course we will need slight adjustments once in a while... for example rankk gained quite a lot new challenges since joindate, but the score did not raise.
We could put _that_ into an algorithm and increase the basescore for sites dynamically.

Greetings
Gizmore

We need to be careful with this.

Letting the users vote just means that people will vote sites they have a high % on high and sites at which they suck low.

Currently users can directly influence a sites score by solving challenges. The more you complete on a site, the lower its score gets.
This is so a site with 10 easy chals will score lower than a site with 10 hard chals.

I do agree that not taking the nr of challenges into account is a bit unfair.
Solving TBS challenges doesn't get you a lot of points because it has so many challenges.
Maybe simply adding challcount*10 to the site score?
On the other hand, TBS has a lot of "duplicate" or "stupid" challenges, while Electrica has very few easy ones.
Do we have automatic challenge counting for all sites yet Gizmore?

I do prefer to come up with some algorithm or automatic system. The scoring now seems too random.
Why is the base score for HackThisSite almost twice that of Lost-Chall? I spent a lot of time on Lost and got to 39%, I spent a single day on HTS and got to 18%..

Perhaps we should also rethink the idea of exponential score keeping.
I feel that solving a site 100% deserves more than twice the points as solving it 50%.
Perhaps percent = (percent*percent+100*percent)/200 ?
That in combination with incorporating challenge-count into the sites score might work.

It remains difficult however. Is getting 10% on TBS worth almost 8 times more than 10% on Electrica? How about 100%?
Is solving 20% on 4 sites worth the same as 60% on one site?

The end goal is to have the ranking reflect some form of respect for the challengers. The question remains what deserves more respect?

Currently most sites submit their challengecount.
I know that rankk.org is not sending challenge count atm, but i think it will soon.
Tommorow i will check all other sites if they make use of it. (all others do that already iirc)

For the rescoring i was thinking about a formula too.
My idea for base-score was also something like challcount * difficulty (the computed solving difficulty), but it wont work very well i suppose.
For example i think that electrica, although it has only a few challenges, deserves a higher basescore than my above formula would calculate. Maybe rethink the difficulty formula ?


Your idea of expotential scoring on the other hand might work very well:

Quote from Kender

Is solving 20% on 4(typo?) sites worth the same as 60% on one site?

I think solving 20% on 3 sites is much easier than reach 60% on a single site,
thus i vote with yes for your formula.

Edit: I think the main problem is to adjust/calculate the basescores

I like Kender's idea with
percent = (percent*percent+100*percent)/200

But don't know, which one is better, because I had a suggestion about this topic in the past:
final_score_at_a_site = actual_score *(1+(1/(rank+a)))^b
with a and b we can tune this formula, maybe a=5 and b=2 is a good start.

And with both formula I bet I will loose a lot of rank here, but I don't care

20% on 4 sites was not a typo. With the formula I posted getting 20% on 4 sites would equal 60% on one site.

Suggestions:
1. Add challengecount * 10 to the base score.

2. Incorporate (x*x+100*x)/200 into the scoring.

3. Set all english sites to 10000, all non-english sites to 5000.

I agree with Kender

All sites but rankk and electrica are sending challenge count.
----------------------------------------------------------
For scoring adjustments i will try to implement the new formulas soon.
Before it will go online i will post some results here, so we can check again if it would work well.

Greetings
Gizmore