Skip Navigation

Showing Contributors

Travel Forums Wiki Travel Guide Showing Contributors

Page

Last Post

21. Posted by Hien (Moderator 3906 posts) 7y

Is the wiki having a DB problem at the moment? Some existing articles are said to be empty and the contributors list is messed up. See Asia.

22. Posted by Peter (Admin 5789 posts) 7y

Ah yes, interesting. I know why that's happening - will put a fix in :)

23. Posted by Peter (Admin 5789 posts) 7y

Quoting Hien

Is the wiki having a DB problem at the moment? Some existing articles are said to be empty and the contributors list is messed up. See Asia.

Ok, should be fixed now. Might be a few articles with weirdness still - just make a small edit and it should be fixed soon if so.

24. Posted by joffre (Respected Member 157 posts) 7y

Hiyas, just want to ask how the percentages are calculated for Travel Guide pages. In the following page http://www.travellerspoint.com/guide/Orange_(New_South_Wales)/, created by Utrecht (+730), I added a {{isin|Central_West}} to attach it to the Central West region which resulted in (-3) in the history page. However on the Contributors list Utrecht only has 67% & I now have 33%... surely Utrecht should get more than 67%?

25. Posted by Sander (Moderator 4808 posts) 7y

The boilerplate (all the default headings) doesn't count (afaik; not familiar with the code in question). Which means that Utrecht was responsible for two lines, you for one.

26. Posted by Peter (Admin 5789 posts) 7y

Quoting Sander

The boilerplate (all the default headings) doesn't count (afaik; not familiar with the code in question). Which means that Utrecht was responsible for two lines, you for one.

Yep, that's the exact way it works.

27. Posted by joffre (Respected Member 157 posts) 7y

Wow, ok, if that's the way it works! Thanks for your reply.

28. Posted by Herr Bert (Moderator 1384 posts) 7y

sorry to kick this one, but it fits here:

In the A Coruña article. I noticed that Lavafalls (don't take it personal) is awarded with 21% of the work, when adding 101 characters. Has this to do with him making some title using a differing font like this? If it is it seems like a bug to me. As 101 characters compared to the almost 5000, for is not 21%. (and my calculator agrees )

29. Posted by Peter (Admin 5789 posts) 7y

Yeah, it's the adding of bold tags that does it. The calculations are made based on the first time a sentence first appears in our database. Characters are not a good measure, since then it would be very hard to weed out spammers - you know, they come along and contribute 10,000 characters and then the next person comes and deletes that. Very hard to programmaticly actually know which characters are contributed by whom. So sentences makes more sense.

I do agree that maybe code should not be part of the calculations. I can look into removing that from the system to base it more on the raw sentence. That probably would be a reasonably fair reflection then. Not that it can ever be expected to really be fair - that's just a bit beyond my poor-man's algorithm I'm afraid

30. Posted by Utrecht (Moderator 5595 posts) 7y

At least changing the articles name should be removed, because that makes the contribution 100% with just one click