10 Feb 06
Originally posted by stockenA few days ago, my ranking was 444. I was very handsome at that time, now I have become ugly. :'(
And your ranking is 472! 😀 Whoooo...
What does that mean? My figure is better looking. That's what it means. Now, if only figure were important to a man like me... 🙂
Oh, you mean the number is better looking? No wait, I was the one who claimed it in the first place. 🙄
[3 edits and nothing actually added. Pittiful. Well, this edit is added, of course.]
10 Feb 06
Quick comments on all of this.
Firstly, I hope all the bugs have now been removed.
It is a db optimisation. The rank is assigned at the time of the snap shot, and will remain until it is refreshed. (The frequency of which could be increased if people feel that strongly about it.)
There are a number of good reasons for making the change, the main being that the near static table results in plenty of cacheable queries, and optimisations for those that aren’t cacheable. The query times were unacceptable previously.
As for the won/lost/drawn stats, as their omission is causing so much upset, I can include those too.
-Russ
10 Feb 06
Originally posted by RussThanks for taking the time to explain why you made the change. I still don't really understand the need for the inconsistency (i.e. why the tables are only partly static), though. Personally, that's what bothers me most (and I can already imagine the hundreds of threads about this by confused newcomers in the Help Forum). Increasing the frequency of the snap shots wouldn't help much with that. It also still wouldn't allow me to see my new ranking right after finishing a game (which I like to do, but of course I can live without it), so I don't really care whether it's refreshed once a day or several times a day. Just my opinion, others may have totally different preferences.
It is a db optimisation. The rank is assigned at the time of the snap shot, and will remain until it is refreshed. (The frequency of which could be increased if people feel that strongly about it.)
10 Feb 06
Originally posted by NordlysThey are entirely static (for 24hours).
Thanks for taking the time to explain why you made the change. I still don't really understand the need for the inconsistency (i.e. why the tables are only partly static), though. Personally, that's what bothers me most (and I can already imagine the hundreds of threads about this by confused newcomers in the Help Forum). Increasing the frequency of the snap ...[text shortened]... ay or several times a day. Just my opinion, others may have totally different preferences.
By searching or sorting the column headers, you are just searching within the ranked positions. It is possible some of the bugs caused more confusion, so take another look, and then explain the problem again if it remains. (which it probably does)
-Russ
10 Feb 06
Originally posted by RussI probably wasn't very clear... What I meant with "entirely static tables" were tables in which not only the ranking is from the time of the snapshot, but also the rating, move number etc. As it is now, the tables show the rating, move numbers etc. as they are right now, but the ranking is from the time of the snapshot. For example, the player who currently is ranked 469 has a rating of 1713, while everybody around him/her has a rating of 1707. That's what I find confusing.
They are entirely static (for 24hours).
By searching or sorting the column headers, you are just searching within the ranked positions. It is possible some of the bugs caused more confusion, so take another look, and then explain the problem again if it remains. (which it probably does)
-Russ
10 Feb 06
Originally posted by NordlysAh! Yes, I see. The player stats are real-time, just the ranking is cached.
I probably wasn't very clear... What I meant with "entirely static tables" were tables in which not only the ranking is from the time of the snapshot, but also the rating, move number etc. As it is now, the tables show the rating, move numbers etc. as they are right now, but the ranking is from the time of the snapshot. For example, the player who currently ...[text shortened]... of 1713, while everybody around him/her has a rating of 1707. That's what I find confusing.
-Russ
