Suggestion for Vault scoring

[DigiK-oz]

As discussions are started about which projects to allow or exclude from DC-Vault (commercial vs public, but also in recent past whether a project is "mature" enough or not) I would like to suggest a change in the DC-VAULT scoring system.

I have suggested this before in other threads about projects being included or not, but at this time I feel this suggestion deserves its own thread, so here we go :)

I would like everyone to consider this change with a very open mind and express their opinions, as this proposed change will benefit some teams initially as far as Vault ranking is concerned (including my own team, DPC), and may hurt others.

I suggest to calculate the Vault ranking over a team's scores in all projects as it is now, but discard each team's lowest 5 scores (or any other number, but I'll keep 5 in the rest of this post).

There's currently 30 or so projects in DC-Vault. Leaving out the 5 worst projects per team would have a number of positive effects I think :



Currently, older projects with a small number of teams participating influence the Vault-ranking enormously. New(ish) teams will never get anywhere near the top of the rankings without dedicating an insane amount of power on PSP-PRP, DPAD, Wieferich. If they have 5 projects of their own choice they can safely "ignore" without committing vault-suicide, this might get more teams interested.
Some teams simply dislike certain projects for various reasons (too commercial, not mature, unfair scoring and the like). With the proposed scoring change, they can again safely ignore some projects.
Discussions about project inclusion/exclusion may become more "clean", i.e. less influenced by a team's score on that project.


Also, teams which ARE high up in the rankings of the mentioned mega-points projects, will still retain their well-earned points on those projects.

Downside is of course that it may initially cause a giant change in the overall rankings. I have not done extensive calculations on this, but I think it will make the differences in the top of the ranking a lot smaller (which I feel is a good thing).

Another issue may be a technical one : implementing it in the calculation of the overall ranking may not be very simple.

Maybe the admins/statistics programmers can first set it up as sort of a shadow ranking? That way we can figure out if it could work at all, find the correct number of projects that can be ignored, and iron out any quirks.

I am well aware that my team would probably benefit from the proposed change, but this is not the reason I would like to see this implemented (not the only or most important one, anyway :) ). I think the competition will become more fun simply because the differences in score will become much smaller, and teams can get higher in the rankings by dedicating their power in a smart way rather than getting stuck because of the long-running smaller projects.

A long post, but still only my 2 cents ;)

[Xaverius]

Thanks for your post DigiK-oz! I've been waiting a while now for anyone to react but... I'm the first
I would like to see a few reactions from different teams on how they see this suggestion. :)

[Da-Grizz]

Greetings and Ni + Hi Sir DigiK-oz !!

Sorry to also have taken so long to reply , only just noticed your post :o !

However , your suggestion has a lot of merit , and I feel it would indeed "Enliven"(*) the lower teams and make "Tacktical"(*) crunching more interesting . Many of the top teams do this anyway ;) .

Da-Grizz sez yes to your sugestion(*) , and now let the disscusion proceed !

Regds Grizzly

PS : I am a member of KWSN , and yes we may fall in the DC ranks , but the top 5 teams have their position from being there for YEARS , with a very strong history in older projects . Newer teams cannot get there without (as Sir DigiK-oz points out) "Crunching" the LONG runing projects BIG TIME . Not practical , unless a team buys a "Crunching Farm" (or five :eek:) for some time . This of course would raise that old can of worms of "Commercial etc !!) :(

Thanks for reading

Da-Grizz

[Razor_FX_II]

I disagree and I don't see why the DC-Vault needs to be changed at all.
Team [H]ard|OCP came from I think position 156 and now we are team 10 all in about 1-1.5 years and we only have about 5 regular crunchers on our team.
I think the DC-Vault looses credibility every time someone suggests changing the rules. The DC-Vault has become the official team/project comparison website based on the existing rules and changing the rules later when someone comes along that thinks it's all wrong and they have re-invented the wheel does this site a disservice.

[Razor_FX_II]

more...
If you think this through from the point of view of the top ranking teams instead of the smaller or new teams then you must see that this idea would alleviate any weakness in the top teams scores and solidify there positions even more. This will actually work against the smaller or new teams.
I think the top teams have earned there positions fair and square and belong there because they do participate in most if not all projects and have done so for many years. I suppose those dedicated teams don't belong at the top of the ranking?
The impact on projects that have a small amount of team participation for what ever reason would be a death blow to those projects if the few teams that still participate in them stop because it is no longer needed to retain or further there position.

[Da-Grizz]

Ni + Hi Sir Razor !!

You also have given some valid points (NO Pun intended :rolleyes:) to contemplate .

We need some more input methinks . Ie , more people to say yea or nay, views etc .

I realise this is not forea to change the rules of DC Vault , just an exploration of possibilities . DC Vault Admins might reply ?


Regds Da-Grizz :

PS : I like competition , and for people to think about their DC contribution and be valid in their contribution .

[DigiK-oz]

I disagree and I don't see why the DC-Vault needs to be changed at all.
Team [H]ard|OCP came from I think position 156 and now we are team 10 all in about 1-1.5 years and we only have about 5 regular crunchers on our team.
I think the DC-Vault looses credibility every time someone suggests changing the rules. The DC-Vault has become the official team/project comparison website based on the existing rules and changing the rules later when someone comes along that thinks it's all wrong and they have re-invented the wheel does this site a disservice.

more...
If you think this through from the point of view of the top ranking teams instead of the smaller or new teams then you must see that this idea would alleviate any weakness in the top teams scores and solidify there positions even more. This will actually work against the smaller or new teams.
I think the top teams have earned there positions fair and square and belong there because they do participate in most if not all projects and have done so for many years. I suppose those dedicated teams don't belong at the top of the ranking?
The impact on projects that have a small amount of team participation for what ever reason would be a death blow to those projects if the few teams that still participate in them stop because it is no longer needed to retain or further there position.


My team, too, has been working hard to crawl up the rankings. I have not said that the current scoring was "all wrong", nor claimed to have re-invented anything; My team is happily crunching away, selecting projects which give us most points in DC-Vault for monthly focus . My suggestion was aimed to MAYBE come up with an alternative scoring method which might get more teams to participate and/or to make the battle for top positions more interesting, while allowing teams to ignore certain projects they dislike (see the discussions in this forum about commercial projects, for instance)

I do not think the proposed change would solidify the top reams' position, but quite the opposite. That's why I suggested the Vault admins/programmers to implement my proposed scoring in an alternative score-list, so the effect could be actually seen instead of based on gut feeling. And yes, the current top teams have deserved their position and should be at the top (hell, we are at #3 ourselves) but in the current situation the top teams could abandon DC altogether and stay at the top for many months or years to come. The death blow to smaller projects would not happen I think, because there will still be a lot of points to gain there if a team chooses to focus on them (PSP would still give 350+ points per position gained with my proposed change).

[Ragnarog]

Hi,

For many years a quite simple rule has served me well: Don't fix something thats not broken.

IMO this is a case where we should adhere to that rule.

The top teams will be on the top spots. No small team can possibly think of snatching one of the higher ranks, its just not possible nor would it be plausible if suddenly smaller teams end up on the front ranks.

Project exclusion be it lowest, 5 or 10 lowest will simply shift the crunching Power around but will not change much in the rankings and I fear it may take cpu time away from smaller, less visible or less accessible.

The result of such a rule change would be short-term, small ranking shifts but face the truth, small teams stay small, big teams compete at the top.

Rag

[10:13]

Ummm ... I'm probably out of line here. Heck, I'm not even sure I understand all the ramifications. I've also been out of DC for a number of years and just getting back in.

However, there is something that occurs to me, something that was true years ago and is still true now (apparently). There are big teams, there are middlin' teams, there are smaller teams. There are new projects and projects that have been around forever ... and projects that have died, been completed, etc.

However, DC-Vault (and other overall ranking methodologies) just have one big container. It results in big boys on top, etc. For the most point, if you're not a big boy, it results in "We're number 42 (or 98 or 146 or ...). You can't challenge for the top spot, generally.

Stupid idea -> What about classes? The top 15 teams are (fill in the blank as to name), the next 30 are (next fill in the blank), etc. (and 15, 30 are merely example numbers, no hard proposals). Now this configuration would give every team a chance to be the top of something (best SETI team in the X class; best team overall in the X class; just moved from X class to Y class). Main idea is to promote competition, well, more competition (and participation) ... and allow more teams (and individuals) to feel valued.

Now, I don't claim this is great idea ... in fact it's probably a half-assed idea (might have to do with new porter I've been sampling tonite (yes, I am half-pissed)). Just thought I'd throw it out ... promote discussion, insults, etc.

10:13