WR Table in plain HTML?

General discussion about the games and the scene.

Moderator: Moporators

Post Reply
User avatar
Abula
Moposite admin
Posts: 4410
Joined: 16 May 2002, 23:00
Team: FM
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Abula » 16 May 2020, 15:14

I was trying to fix Kazan's team in the old Moposite system when I asked myself if there is any reason to do it through the old legacy PHP system? Are there other known errors in the WR table that could be easily fixed if we edited just the HTML file? WR statistics would stop being updated but are they needed anymore?
40:02,71 (104.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 9x FEM | KOM | Article | UPLOAD

User avatar
Hosp
38mins club
Posts: 1969
Joined: 30 Aug 2009, 20:55
Team: MiE
Location: Uppsala, Sweden.
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Hosp » 16 May 2020, 17:01

very need WR stats
Image
ToMaT

User avatar
ArZeNiK
38mins club
Posts: 688
Joined: 30 Jul 2016, 09:18
Team: Ferrari

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by ArZeNiK » 16 May 2020, 17:28

We still need them yes
hi im arzenik :>
september 23th 2017 never forget
Image

User avatar
Schumi
39mins club
Posts: 842
Joined: 27 Jul 2003, 06:44
Location: Ikrény, Hungary

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Schumi » 16 May 2020, 18:20

We not just need, but need more stats! :)
Elasto Mania - 34:26.58 | #412 - 11. June 2020
Ancient Internals

User avatar
Abula
Moposite admin
Posts: 4410
Joined: 16 May 2002, 23:00
Team: FM
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Abula » 16 May 2020, 18:25

Oh no, okay, but it's not raining anymore!
40:02,71 (104.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 9x FEM | KOM | Article | UPLOAD

User avatar
pawq
38mins club
Posts: 6413
Joined: 24 Aug 2008, 19:56
Team: TR
Location: Southampton, UK

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by pawq » 16 May 2020, 20:26

Agree, Moposite WR stats ftw

User avatar
Zweq
34mins club
Posts: 3996
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 15:54
Location: suo mesta

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Zweq » 20 May 2020, 06:40

WR stats are useful and interesting yes, although there are so few WRs nowadays they barely change at all.

I think we should as a community rethink the whole statistics- and datastoring -part of the game. For internal times we have 3 (moposite, eol, elmastats) main sources of information and we are about to get 4th (steam elma). For external times we have EOL and a ton of sites that have gone offline. For levels we have EOL and it's barely usable. For replays we have 2 sites which are barely usable. For TAS:ing we have nothing.
Image

User avatar
Abula
Moposite admin
Posts: 4410
Joined: 16 May 2002, 23:00
Team: FM
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Abula » 20 May 2020, 17:20

I agree but it's a really difficult task:

1. Program the system with all old and new features (500 hours?)
2. Import data from old sources (100 hours?)
3. Lots of manual work to fix double nicks etc.
4. Lots of manual work to find the best results (if the system has all data)
5. Keep the system running for a long time (and mirror it)
40:02,71 (104.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 9x FEM | KOM | Article | UPLOAD

User avatar
Kopaka
39mins club
Posts: 6509
Joined: 23 May 2002, 13:59
Team: LAME
Location: In a northern danish city beating YOUR record.
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Kopaka » 21 May 2020, 00:16

What I've had in mind for a while, and hoping to actually accomplish soon, is to import legacy times into EOL database. The benefit of that route vs. some new site that combines things or importing eol times into moposite like they used to, is that eol is where new times are added, so the import would be a one time thing and new times would be there automatically. By Legacy times I mean anything from before June 16th 2011 that was verified at the time (state.dat for internals, replay file for externals).

1. So that would mean the system to show data is already there, although some features missing like national tables etc.
2. Import from moposite at least is relatively simple because data structure is similar and things imported from eol to moposite is noted as such so we know which would be duplicate times.
3. Some manual work to check nicks are aligned correctly
5. eol gonna be around as long as elma 1.x is the relevant version at least, elma.online is open source so doesn't necessarily rely on one person, although contributions from other people than me has been small recently, I'm pretty motivated currently

so I feel like this is the easiest and most foolproof solution

some things to consider
- should legacy times be shown in-game in shift+f5?
- should it be something you turn on and off when viewing times on the website?

elmastats site is a different beast, times can't really be considered 100% verified, but I also think as far as internals go moposite and eol combined should have 99% of all times, so maybe not so important?

as far as externals goes, they can be imported as well but may require more work, kopasite is easy as well due to data structure, markku is looking at scraping old skintatious html into something usable, so those will most likely be imported, is there anything else still around?

User avatar
Grace
38mins club
Posts: 4761
Joined: 19 Nov 2005, 10:45
Location: Deep in your Imagination, Twirling your Dreams and Weaving your thoughts.

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Grace » 21 May 2020, 06:32

elmastats is - as the name suggests - more about the statistics side of things rather than the verification of times. Most people are using that site for instant updates on times page, keeping track of other internalists, statistics for comparisons such as comparing PRs, totaltimes, target times, averages etc.

We did discuss at a time looking into importing all WR tables (as they currently appear on moposite, so including any revisions made to remove cheaters etc) onto elmastats and emulating all the statistics alongside that, with the view of making comparison features, adding features such as edahl's standalone program etc. I don't really remember why it didn't get any further other than maybe general laziness from me and others involved.

Of course, elmastats has been around a while now and is definitely one of the more reliable and consistent times/stats services elma community has seen - but it is also just another website and fallible in all the same ways as the others that have come and gone before it.

I do think the stuff discussed in this thread makes more sense for elmastats than EOL website, but also I think that EOL website currently is missing a huge amount of the valuable features that would enhance the WR stats, and I don't think moving stats to EOL website is any better at all than current moposite situation. It's harder for EOL site to get there too, because where elmastats doesn't care about verification, EOL does and it becomes a roadblock to importing stuff - ensuring things are as legitimate as possible.

I'm really, really pleased to see how much effort is going into importing old times and having a more complete database of times. To be honest, the whole situation is giving me that humbled feeling a bit and I'd be glad to contribute by adding features to elmastats to facilitate that, if it helps. I do have some stuff coded for elmastats already regarding target times which is waiting on bene/jon to verify and push it to live for about 18 months now, but I can nudge them if we're looking at adding more features.

Currently unsure how steam elma affects things. We'll see.
Image Cyberscore! Image
___________________________________________________
Image
Targets: 6 Legendary, 19 WC, 24 Pro, 5 Good | 37 Australian Records | AvgTT: 40:09:92

User avatar
Zweq
34mins club
Posts: 3996
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 15:54
Location: suo mesta

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Zweq » 21 May 2020, 07:48

I have a personal interest in all kind of statistics so working on them would be a happy hobby. The problem is that working anywhere without fast access to EOL server / db feels like a wasted effort. Is there any way I can contribute to EOL site stats without wanting to write javascript backend?

In 2017 I was writing a 3rd version of jopisite, but instead of being jopi -specific the idea was to have a generic approach to everything. At some point that project got pretty much abandoned, like many projects do. I started adding too many random features and things got a bit loose. I also realized that coming up and implementing a good UX/UI takes far too much time for me. Also it was so highly dependent on EOL API it felt like risky to do too much effort on it. The website would die completely if EOL API was shutdown. Anyway, this is a different story.

Anyway, I coded some basics statistics page on that website and added internals levelpack. It's something interesting / useful that came out of that project, something that I still check every now and then for fun. Recent activity for example: http://packs.zamppe.com/statistics/show ... ty_type=wr

What is the future of moposite? Should the records section (wr table, total times, statistics) be rewritten and embedded to EOL site?

Elmastats is the best we have for internals, which I think is extremely sad, because that site is not even good and is extremely simple and still beats every other site for internals by a margin. Why other sites suck:
Moposite
+ has all the most important historic times before EOL era
- is very outdated because it requires manual work / updating (?)
EOL site
+ is fully automatic
+ times can most likely be confirmed to be 99.999% legit
- is slow and barely usable
- times are not updated in realtime, but only on mondays
- doesn't have historic times

Something that should be re-discussed is that mondays-only update on internals and WRs staying hidden until updated needed these days? If this was to be removed, historic times imported into EOL database and some basic statistics pages added into new EOL site, then things would look much brighter and maybe luckily people could start eyeing one website only.
Image

User avatar
pawq
38mins club
Posts: 6413
Joined: 24 Aug 2008, 19:56
Team: TR
Location: Southampton, UK

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by pawq » 21 May 2020, 13:33

I agree with most of what has been said in the last 3 posts (especially with the idea of collating all available times in a single site, and that the EOL site looks like the most suitable place for that), but I wanted to add one thing:

I think it's extremely important, at least in case of internals, to also add the times that have not been verified in any way. Even if you look only at u40min total times (as per my lauta thread), Moposite+elmaonline.net together only hold 47 out of 136 totals (maybe a few more because of duplicates, but max. 5-10 or sth, so still around 60% missing). If we want to only have one place to check for times and stats - those times need to be there, otherwise I'll have to keep manually updating the lauta thread and people will have to keep checking that.

I think it's perfectly suitable for those times to be labelled differently (for example "unverified", as opposed to "online-verified" and "verified"). This leaves us with 3 stages of verification, which may seem a bit tedious, but I think is unavoidable if we want to pull times from various services over 2 decades into one system, while maintaining info on their legitimacy. Designing some neat small icons to appear next to individual times could be a nice way to make it intuitive :)

To answer Kopaka's question: I think it's paramount that there's an option to show/hide not-EOL times on the website, and I think ideally in-game too. If we end up having 3 categories, they could be simple checkboxes on any stats page, with an option to change the default setting in profile settings. If changing it in-game is not possible (which I guess is very likely), then I'm not sure which one is the best option. The advantage of showing all times, even unverified, is completeness, but there's obviously always a risk of cheated times flooding the lists.

User avatar
Abula
Moposite admin
Posts: 4410
Joined: 16 May 2002, 23:00
Team: FM
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Abula » 21 May 2020, 20:43

Yes, I've liked the idea of the "verification level" of the records for a long time. For example by default you could see all records but you could also require them to be EOL server verified or replay verified or even video verified (just to find all video verfied times easily). This would also lead to a discussion what verification level is needed to be an official time - maybe not the topic of this thread but maybe there should be a some kind of consensus that certain records must be video or server verified such as WRs, national records, maybe top-100 total times etc.

I don't know what's the current situation with EOL & Moposite connection. I consider Moposite being out-of-date in Records.

As I see Moposite's future it's more about history and news + archive like the article, Ultimate DVD and other archives I have - I'll soon add more to archive.moposite.com. I don't have time to make new features to the site but I can try to fix critical bugs and transform the site to some kind of big archive. I've been planning to do also some kind of Welcome site for new players about the history etc. in 2 mins read or something like that.

Unfortunately it looks like Moposite Players section (old Kuski Gallery) seems to be not working atm but I hope it's not needed anymore. Except WR table uses player and teams data... vk programmed the system 15 years ago so it's not an easy job for me to start fixing this but maybe it must be done, at least Kazan's team is now "[]" which is a bug I guess, damez.
40:02,71 (104.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 9x FEM | KOM | Article | UPLOAD

User avatar
pawq
38mins club
Posts: 6413
Joined: 24 Aug 2008, 19:56
Team: TR
Location: Southampton, UK

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by pawq » 22 May 2020, 09:51

Abula wrote:
21 May 2020, 20:43
This would also lead to a discussion what verification level is needed to be an official time
Is there any reason to change what we've used for nearly a decade already, which is EOL-verified? We've changed to EOL-verified for good reasons afaik :)
Abula wrote:
21 May 2020, 20:43
As I see Moposite's future it's more about history and news + archive
I very agree on this, just please don't underestimate what a great piece of history it is :heart:

User avatar
ArZeNiK
38mins club
Posts: 688
Joined: 30 Jul 2016, 09:18
Team: Ferrari

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by ArZeNiK » 22 May 2020, 12:39

Abula wrote:
21 May 2020, 20:43
This would also lead to a discussion what verification level is needed to be an official time
undetectable cheat tools => online verification, period
hi im arzenik :>
september 23th 2017 never forget
Image

User avatar
Abula
Moposite admin
Posts: 4410
Joined: 16 May 2002, 23:00
Team: FM
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Abula » 26 May 2020, 08:38

pawq wrote:
22 May 2020, 09:51
Abula wrote:
21 May 2020, 20:43
This would also lead to a discussion what verification level is needed to be an official time
Is there any reason to change what we've used for nearly a decade already, which is EOL-verified? We've changed to EOL-verified for good reasons afaik :)
No, I don't think so. I just don't know / remember the details anymore! It's great that there is already consensus on that.
40:02,71 (104.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 9x FEM | KOM | Article | UPLOAD

User avatar
Abula
Moposite admin
Posts: 4410
Joined: 16 May 2002, 23:00
Team: FM
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Abula » 26 May 2020, 08:53

But didn't someone say that jon's Elmastats allow records without verification? Also looks like your TT list also allows Elmastats times? To me it looks like an open question. If some new "Markku" sent in his state.dat better than anyone else, would he get top-1 in TT list or not? Is there clear rules for a case like this?
40:02,71 (104.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 9x FEM | KOM | Article | UPLOAD

User avatar
pawq
38mins club
Posts: 6413
Joined: 24 Aug 2008, 19:56
Team: TR
Location: Southampton, UK

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by pawq » 26 May 2020, 13:24

elmastats and my TTs list don't have the same verification level as WRs in individual levels. I think both allow non-EOL tts (at least mine does) simply because way too many times & totals have been made pre-EOL, so any list excluding those would feel extremely incomplete. Following this, some modern unofficial times (Kazan's to-be Hi Flyer WR comes to mind at least, where he got disconnected mid-run) have been allowed, but if I remember right there were one or two TTs that got removed because the players were known cheaters. At least I'd judge this on a case-by-case basis and with the community's feedback - if somebody uploads a tt that's not complete in EOL but generally seems legit, then probably accept, but if somebody uploads mega tt out of the blue - probably nat.

But as I said earlier I think, ideally imo it should be a list where all times are in one place, but non-EOL times are clearly marked as unverified, which should be possible on EOL site :)

User avatar
Abula
Moposite admin
Posts: 4410
Joined: 16 May 2002, 23:00
Team: FM
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Abula » 26 May 2020, 15:13

Yea, maybe I got mixed up with some other thread but I meant that different records could have different verification levels, like:

- WR: very strong verification (EOL/video)
- TT under 40mins: strong verification (EOL/video/judge)
- National Record: strong verification
- Team Record: weak verification
- Personal Record: weak verification

But dunno about Steam or anything, just an idea of the concept of "different verification levels" for different contests according to their importance. So if one day, when EOL/Steam doesn't work, someone has only a computer without internet and a video camera, he can still beat some WRs and submit later.
40:02,71 (104.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 9x FEM | KOM | Article | UPLOAD

User avatar
Abula
Moposite admin
Posts: 4410
Joined: 16 May 2002, 23:00
Team: FM
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Abula » 26 May 2020, 15:21

And about that Hi Flyer which I don't know any details about but it's a bit difficult because once you accept one exception, it opens the gates for more problematic ones. Maybe don't allow more exceptions but leave that one accepted for the sake of history lolz :)
40:02,71 (104.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 9x FEM | KOM | Article | UPLOAD

User avatar
Labs
37mins club
Posts: 1097
Joined: 2 May 2005, 14:20
Team: SPEED
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Labs » 27 May 2020, 00:03

Abula wrote:
26 May 2020, 15:13
So if one day, when EOL/Steam doesn't work, someone has only a computer without internet and a video camera, he can still beat some WRs and submit later.
I think when eol stopping, we will get okeol, which will get automated (instant?) wr table updates (maybe auto-rec upload also, so everyone could ensure its not a bug or smth), beating a wr would always need internet or it cant get valid in my opinion.
Team SPEED

Image

i love everyone :*

User avatar
Abula
Moposite admin
Posts: 4410
Joined: 16 May 2002, 23:00
Team: FM
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Abula » 27 May 2020, 07:56

In a post-apocalyptic world when we all live in the real underground without global internet, Elma should not be forgotten. Just film your drives and we will figure out later how to rule the verifications! Maybe show some proof of the date (like local newspaper or something) after new WR if it is possible.
40:02,71 (104.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 9x FEM | KOM | Article | UPLOAD

User avatar
Zweq
34mins club
Posts: 3996
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 15:54
Location: suo mesta

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Zweq » 27 May 2020, 10:17

okeol will have a builtin Internet so it's ok.
Abula wrote:
26 May 2020, 15:13
- WR: very strong verification (EOL/video)
- TT under 40mins: strong verification (EOL/video/judge)
- National Record: strong verification
- Team Record: weak verification
- Personal Record: weak verification

And about that Hi Flyer which I don't know any details about but it's a bit difficult because once you accept one exception, it opens the gates for more problematic ones. Maybe don't allow more exceptions but leave that one accepted for the sake of history lolz
Dunno if it's a good idea to have so convoluted verification system. Shouldn't it be enough to require EOL verification for everything, and then manual work to remove cheated times. And of course leave the door open for manual verification of times.

I think multiple people were spying that kazan 26.14, including me. He just suddenly disappeared from the game 5 secs before end.
Image

User avatar
Abula
Moposite admin
Posts: 4410
Joined: 16 May 2002, 23:00
Team: FM
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Abula » 27 May 2020, 10:58

Yes, well actually my purpose was trying to make it simpler than it is now ("sometimes an EOL verification is not needed but usually it is") pointing to this Hi Flyer time and unverified total times but let's hope the problems like these are history after the new systems are running, everybody uses them and the systems will be always available.
40:02,71 (104.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 9x FEM | KOM | Article | UPLOAD

User avatar
Grace
38mins club
Posts: 4761
Joined: 19 Nov 2005, 10:45
Location: Deep in your Imagination, Twirling your Dreams and Weaving your thoughts.

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Grace » 28 May 2020, 06:08

Abula wrote:
26 May 2020, 08:53
But didn't someone say that jon's Elmastats allow records without verification?
Grace wrote: elmastats is - as the name suggests - more about the statistics side of things rather than the verification of times.
For more info, we aren't really concerned with verification on elmastats because the site is purely for statistics purposes, we don't really look to it in any formal manner. Yes, it's now the most complete/up-to-date list of times that exists, but I think people will still treat the site in the same way - it's a fun stats site, but nothing official or formal. There is some effort put into managing stuff (removing hooked bugs, cheated times etc) but overall not a huge amount of worry about verification. That's what EOL is for. Really we only look into verify times for WRs historically, and we look at EOL for that, not elmastats. :)

That said, if move to EOL for full history of times and stats, the burden of verification becomes quite large. I think that current situation has evolved because it's best situation (with the caveat that obviously would have been nicer if mopo worked consistently throughout last decade). I agree that elmastats is very simple and backend is quite horror, but these things can be fixed. There's no reason elmastats can't be made better and brought up to a very high standard, matching or exceeding moposite/eol internal tracking.

Agree with Zweq that it's better to have simple but solid verification system rather than complex.
Image Cyberscore! Image
___________________________________________________
Image
Targets: 6 Legendary, 19 WC, 24 Pro, 5 Good | 37 Australian Records | AvgTT: 40:09:92

User avatar
Abula
Moposite admin
Posts: 4410
Joined: 16 May 2002, 23:00
Team: FM
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Abula » 28 May 2020, 15:35

So we don't have a total times list that could be considered as "official" atm? I mean if Moposite misses lots of times, Elmastats is only for "statistics purpose" (because it's not verified) and pawq's list includes Elmastats data according to some arbitrary rules that are debated case by case. I'm just pointing out the current situation, not meaning to blame anybody. It's okay but could be better 8O

Or is there Elmaonline total times list as well? Ok found https://elmaonline.net/statistics/levelpack/Int#0/ Well it misses even more than Moposite

edit: personally I consider pawq's list as the most official, I guess it's 99 % clean anyway but it can change if many new mans start playing
40:02,71 (104.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 9x FEM | KOM | Article | UPLOAD

User avatar
pawq
38mins club
Posts: 6413
Joined: 24 Aug 2008, 19:56
Team: TR
Location: Southampton, UK

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by pawq » 28 May 2020, 16:00

Just to clarify, the "arbitrary rules" you mentioned were used literally in one or two cases. Kazan's Hi-fly was accepted because of a general consensus, I think some cheater was removed for obvious reasons (darm? or somebody, can't remember), and I very vaguely remember that there may've been another case, but not sure. 99.999% of times are just pulled through the sites mentioned under the table, including Kazan's 07, cuz it is on elmastats :)

The reason why we don't have a comprehensive "verified/official" tt list is that only a handful of people (<10 u40mans anyway) actually have all PRs on EOL, most have at least some pre-EOL PRs.

User avatar
Abula
Moposite admin
Posts: 4410
Joined: 16 May 2002, 23:00
Team: FM
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Abula » 28 May 2020, 19:32

pawq wrote:
28 May 2020, 16:00
The reason why we don't have a comprehensive "verified/official" tt list is that only a handful of people (<10 u40mans anyway) actually have all PRs on EOL, most have at least some pre-EOL PRs.
Okay, thank you for the info pawq! Does "Elma Online" mean in your list that the times are 100 % EOL verified? If so, it could be told in the bottom of the list?

Are there snapshots of your TT list of previous years? If you use Google Sheet, it has revisions?

Would it be possible to mark next to the player how many of his times are EOL verified? I think this would add some more clarification and credibility to the list? And maybe some ppl would even improve some of their times to get the verification level to 100 % if the list tells its eg. 89 %.

Would it be possible to add side notes like Kazan's Hi Flyer that it's a special one? I mean some [1] to his result row and in the bottom of the list have the explanation for this [1] (and others if there are in top-50 or something?)
40:02,71 (104.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 9x FEM | KOM | Article | UPLOAD

User avatar
Abula
Moposite admin
Posts: 4410
Joined: 16 May 2002, 23:00
Team: FM
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Abula » 29 May 2020, 10:04

I want to add that I think it's super great that you (and other mans) have maintained these lists to make them as good and comprehensive lists as possible in the current situation. I'm just brainstorming for ideas how to improve it without too much effort needed and maybe add some more credibility to it
40:02,71 (104.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 9x FEM | KOM | Article | UPLOAD

User avatar
pawq
38mins club
Posts: 6413
Joined: 24 Aug 2008, 19:56
Team: TR
Location: Southampton, UK

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by pawq » 9 Jun 2020, 19:08

Thanks for the kind words =)

Abula wrote:
28 May 2020, 19:32
Does "Elma Online" mean in your list that the times are 100 % EOL verified? If so, it could be told in the bottom of the list?
Yes, it means that that total time was displayed on elmaonline.net, which means that all times are EOL-verified. I'll add a note below the source list.

Abula wrote:
28 May 2020, 19:32
Are there snapshots of your TT list of previous years? If you use Google Sheet, it has revisions?
Unfortunately I only started saving every update in 2017, the earliest I have is from 1 Feb 2017. Before that I guess it didn't occur to me that it would be a smart idea to do that, or maybe I couldn't be bothered, who knows :( I'll upload a zip with what I have and add it below the main table, thanks for the suggestion!

Abula wrote:
28 May 2020, 19:32
Would it be possible to mark next to the player how many of his times are EOL verified? I think this would add some more clarification and credibility to the list? And maybe some ppl would even improve some of their times to get the verification level to 100 % if the list tells its eg. 89 %.
This would be quite a bit of effort, both manually comparing individual times and trying to automate it. I could do it, but at the moment it looks like those legacy times might be imported into the EOL database, which would mean that calculating "EOL-verified-only" TTs or any other associated stats would be quite a simple matter, so I don't think I want to invest more time in this list, especially since I'm quite busy now.

Abula wrote:
28 May 2020, 19:32
Would it be possible to add side notes like Kazan's Hi Flyer that it's a special one? I mean some [1] to his result row and in the bottom of the list have the explanation for this [1] (and others if there are in top-50 or something?)
Hmmmmm. It's possible to add a note of course, but I'm not sure if it makes sense, because essentially all of the non-EOL total times are unverified to the same extent as Kazan's TT. Kazan's was just widely discussed because it involved an unofficial WR time, but a lot of noober people could have such offline times in their TTs and we wouldn't know. So I think I'd rather stick to verification levels (EOL-verified, not verified)


Sorry I couldn't help more!

User avatar
Abula
Moposite admin
Posts: 4410
Joined: 16 May 2002, 23:00
Team: FM
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: WR Table in plain HTML?

Post by Abula » 9 Jun 2020, 20:07

Great stuff, thank you! The zip would be appreciated! Maybe it gives more insight to 2017-2020 period

edit: got it
40:02,71 (104.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 9x FEM | KOM | Article | UPLOAD

Post Reply