Forums > Bugs > I am not getting to best 100 contributors despite having enough points
Michael Zimnicki (138) on 4/24/2024 9:19 AM · Reply · Permalink · Report
Hi,
I received 8 points about two days ago, which should be enough to get to this month's best 100, yet I'm not there. There was usually a delay previously, but I think previously it wasn't that big. Also, it is the second time I should be in best 100, and I'm not, only the first time I should have gotten there marginally, so there wasn't a real reason to inform you.
Is it a bug?
Also, if it is a marginal bug you don't have time for, then if you write sth like "Unfortunately we don't have time to fix it, besides it requires the programmers' time, which isn't cheap, you know, but thank you for cleverly finding mistakes in the database, even though the messages sent automatically after approving your findings have thanked you already" it will be really nicer than you expect.
Michael Zimnicki (138) on 4/24/2024 11:42 AM · Reply · Permalink · Report
Hmm... So perhaps it's just a longer delay...
Still, I have just refreshed the 100 best list, and even though I'm not completely, completely sure of the scores of the 100-th place before, I think it's changed, so the list has been updated, and I'm still not in it.
Rwolf (23527) on 4/24/2024 10:01 PM · Reply · Permalink · Report
But that would make the monthly count pointless (sic) as there is no looking back at when this happened, more than a month ago. All it would show is whoever got to draw the lucky chance of being approved the same month as the submission was made?
Michael Zimnicki (138) on 4/24/2024 10:49 PM · Reply · Permalink · Report
Exactly, Rwolf. And contributing at the end of the month would be, at least considering Best 100 of the month, pointless.
Still, I would return to this "if you can't put me in Best 100 easily, which I deserve, just thank me". This way I'd feel appreciated, too.
I think I had a heart attack on Tuesday.
Michael Zimnicki (138) on 4/24/2024 11:34 PM · Reply · Permalink · Report
I get to 100 Best sometimes and I don't get as many points each month that I wouldn't keep track of them. I think I'd have noticed this already.
Rwolf (23527) on 4/25/2024 12:37 PM · Reply · Permalink · Report
I think these short-term comparisons mainly can show the ratio between submissions to approvals, meaning the approval rate is more depending on the submission type and verification time to go through various queues, also the limited available (voluntary) time for the approvers to spend on this work. It is a difficult thing to balance IMO.
I guess adding thousands of names in credits from some game might seem like a major source of points, but then some poor approver has to go through them all to verify such a list, which can take a long time too - maybe it will be done within a month, maybe not.
Meta-gaming the point scoring system could be fun - what are the quickest ways to get some nice points? But then the approval delay turns into a 'what have you done for me lately?' question, making it difficult to stay on top and keep a high score/month for a normal user. I guess what's most needed here are good & efficient approvers.
45th&47th (1225) on 5/4/2024 2:29 AM · Reply · Permalink · Report
I was at first confused as to why I wasn't on this month's leaderboard even though I had 3 submissions approved yesterday. Today I had 5 submissions approved, 2 of which are from this month, which now shows me added on this month's leaderboard. I now realize that the points that aren't being counted this month is because of all the other approvals from last month were showing on last month's leaderboard.
I see the leaderboards as harmless fun, but the way they are currently make no sense at all. Most of the users on the top 10 on the leaderboards are either administrators or approvers which give them an advantage by approving their own submissions over everyone else's. What's stopping them from not approving our submissions until months or years later when the points don't show on any leaderboard? And better yet, with the pace of submissions from some users being very slow being lucky to be on the top 100, currently the top 45 users have at least 100 points with only 3 days into the month.
I don't know if there's any bias going on, but it would be nice to fix it so submissions approved have the points count on the current month, not on the month they were submitted.
Rwolf (23527) on 5/4/2024 10:03 AM · Reply · Permalink · Report
I don't think there is any other bias than the experience going on here. It takes some time to learn how to make good submissions, and if you are a long-time good contributor, which then reflects in a shorter time needed for verification - you may get asked to become an approver eventually, which shows in the list. However, self-approvals give no points as far as I know, someone else must approve your submission for that to happen. I can do self-approval for small corrections, like spelling errors, if I find them when I look at random games, but I don't get any points for this - not that I care.
An approver may choose what to look at, and deal with those submissions they feel they are qualified for, and this may also give some bias in the queues; e.g. if I submit a cover scan or a screenshot for an existing game entry, that submission can go through much faster than a brand new game submission, just because there is a lot to verify. I also have submissions sitting in queues for years, but I don't worry about them - the only problem is if a website reference suddenly is unavailable once it is looked at.
Michael Zimnicki (138) on 6/28/2024 11:58 PM · Reply · Permalink · Report
Hi, Rwolf,
You raise (sorry, if it should be "rise", I am concentrating on the issue, not spelling) an important point, still, you are wrong about it.
Namely, you write:
"It takes some time to learn how to make good submissions, and if you are a long-time good contributor, which then reflects in a shorter time needed for verification -".
So the 100 Best list should be favourable to expert contributors. I may sound like I'm recommending cheating a bit, but it shouldn't.
The beginning of the month is the time, where enthusiastic novices have a chance to beat veterans for a while. I remember this joy, when I entered the one 100 list. I think it is fine: a novice gets some points in the beginning of the month, but in the long run an expert beats him (or her).
This is fine: a novice feels appreciated, while an expert fairly wins at the end of the month.
You may ask: but maybe, if an expert also gets additional points from past month, the disproportions will be bigger.
Well, I think this is what happened in October last year. On the 1-st October the following contributions of mine were accepted:
- Correction for "Sniper: Ghost Warrior - Contracts 2", written on 2023-09-22,
- Critic score for "Sniper: Ghost Warrior - Contracts 2", written on 2023-09-25,
- Critic score for "Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty", written on 2023-09-30,
- Critic score for Dune: Spice Wars, written on 2023-09-29.
I think I received points for those contributions in 100 best list (so contributions worked differently then) and I was quite glad.
Seriously, I think counting points in 100 best list worked differently just a few months ago. Maybe it can be checked, if anybody has a copy of the list in the few first days of the month. For instance, it is enough to check if the contributions I have listed above have been counted.
I think it worked fine in October, however, we can compare and discuss.
Generally, I think, if you notify about something interesting at the end of the month and get points at the beginning of next month, which makes you enter 100 Best list, this is encouraging.
If you notify about something interesting at the end of the month, and it is counted in a 100 Best list a few months later, this is also fine. Lucky you.
If you notify about something interesting at the end of the month and those points are never counted into 100 best list, it is discouraging.
Additionally - I will try to end this post quickly, as I don't have much time - the points should not rewarding "I'll give more of what approvers expect of me" approach. They should reward searching for important stuff, too.
Rwolf (23527) on 6/29/2024 9:54 PM · Reply · Permalink · Report
What I understand from the posts made by the admins was that the points system would be under evaluation for awhile after it was applied, so maybe it still is. Perhaps a rolling window could work to give a more fluid idea of how the submissions are processed per time frame, but if it fulfills the purpose of the points system, I can't say
Michael Zimnicki (138) on 6/30/2024 7:31 AM · Reply · Permalink · Report
Hmm...
If it's still being evaluated, it is generally good I brought this up?
What's a rolling window?
Rwolf (23527) on 6/30/2024 9:56 PM · edited · Reply · Permalink · Report
A rolling (or sliding) window in this case would be a number of consecutive days, say the most recent 30 days, that you keep track of the submissions for, and do a points sum of every day, instead of just using the start/end of the month as a summation time. It could show the status of the current points in a daily status - more frequent changes than the monthly listing, but still with (almost) the same number of days as the month...it has some drawbacks in doing the daily re-calculation of the points for everyone, and maybe needing more processing time for the web server, so it could be too much of a load to implement.
Michael Zimnicki (138) on 6/13/2024 7:20 PM · Reply · Permalink · Report
You wrote:
"I don't know if there's any bias going on, but it would be nice to fix it so submissions approved have the points count on the current month, not on the month they were submitted."
Thank you for your opinion. Mine is quite similar.
In short, the 100 best list is to encourage people to add interesting things. It's nice to add something at the end of the month, get points after a few days and get to the 100 best list at the beginning of the new month.
Also, we certainly do not want to make people think like:
"It's the end of the month anyway. I will wait 2 days with adding these".
It completely decreases motivation.
Also, I was adding things intensively for like 2 months, I was getting to the 100 best list and I did not observe this "points from previous months do not count" phenomenon. It's quite possible it appeared only recently, and it would be enough to find the previous version of the program to fix it.
I will write a reply to Rwolf later, I wanted to start by replying to you.
45th&47th (1225) on 6/14/2024 2:56 AM · Reply · Permalink · Report
I 100% agree that it decreases motivation on users submitting things. It's common sense for people to believe that whatever gets approved for the current month, the points count toward the current month's leaderboard.
I love how the beginning of every month MobyGames gives a shoutout to the previous month's contributors as if it's finalized. It's a glaring error if you ask me.
But as I mentioned on my previous post, it doesn't really bother me. If it changes, great. If not, whatever. As long as I know how the leaderboards currently work and I see my username there, then I'm satisfied.
Cavalary (11608) on 6/15/2024 1:38 AM · Reply · Permalink · Report
Logging the points according to when the contributions were approved instead of when they were submitted would be wrong imho. The time of approval is out of the contributor's hands, varies greatly, and doesn't reflect when the work was actually done. Heck, for particularly long queues there may even be cases of approvals coming after the contributors aren't active on the site at all. Ok, edge case there, but it may happen.
45th&47th (1225) on 6/15/2024 3:02 AM · Reply · Permalink · Report
Ok... except the website only shows 2 leaderboards for the previous and current month. Why put in effort for something when your work won't be recognized? I still have submissions that are later than 1 month old and I ask myself, "why submit anything other than critic reviews if it's up to the approver to add points to my score?"
It shouldn't matter "when the work was actually done" as you put it because it's up to the approver when they approve a submission which a contributor can't control. And speaking of, why would that matter? I highly doubt most people would care.