Difference between revisions of "Talk:Badge Statistics"
(→Non-applicable add-ons: Remove wrong user name!) |
(reply) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
: It has been suggested to me before, and I agree it would look much nicer and be a lot more readable. But due to how the rule-set is stored it's quite complex. In simple terms, there is just code, there is no list of which badges can have which addon. While a list of course can be created, it will become a redundancy where it's likely that the list won't be updated. The correct approach is to let such list include references to the code somehow. But that's a bit too much work. --[[User:3305483|3305483]] ([[User talk:3305483|talk]]) 12:11, 3 March 2022 (CET) | : It has been suggested to me before, and I agree it would look much nicer and be a lot more readable. But due to how the rule-set is stored it's quite complex. In simple terms, there is just code, there is no list of which badges can have which addon. While a list of course can be created, it will become a redundancy where it's likely that the list won't be updated. The correct approach is to let such list include references to the code somehow. But that's a bit too much work. --[[User:3305483|3305483]] ([[User talk:3305483|talk]]) 12:11, 3 March 2022 (CET) | ||
::Thanks. It may be possible to do something using templates - I'll try something later. [[User:6278087|6278087]] ([[User talk:6278087|talk]]) 08:07, 4 March 2022 (CET) | ::Thanks. It may be possible to do something using templates - I'll try something later. [[User:6278087|6278087]] ([[User talk:6278087|talk]]) 08:07, 4 March 2022 (CET) | ||
| + | :::That would be very cool. And to not say the least, I would see it as pure magic. --[[User:3305483|3305483]] ([[User talk:3305483|talk]]) 09:54, 4 March 2022 (CET) | ||
Revision as of 09:54, 4 March 2022
Would it be possible to extract data for how many cachers have got addons for each badge? It would probably have to be done as a separate table. Optimist on the run (6278087) (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2020 (CET)
- Yes, it was actually my plan. I wrote the tool to output the current wiki-version while watching TV-series yesterday. Maybe I will get some time to create an Addon table later today. I have also considered adding percents somehow. I would also be interested in Diamond-loops, but not sure how to do it, maybe use 1-9,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90,99, but that sounds a bit too wide. Ideas are always welcome, just don't spend too much time on formatting. As you probably understand, the current data is an output from a program, so I will replace the whole page each time I run it.
- I'll be updating this today, with numbers per Addon. The current data is based on >26,000 profiles. Since the requirements has been updated I will create the next report based on data rendered today only, so the data-set will be much smaller.
Bot-updated
Category:Bot-updated should be added to this page per the information on the category-page. Pages can have multiple categories so it can still stay in BadgeGen too. Pleu (4523550) (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2020 (CET)
- It will be added on next update of the data of everything goes as planned. I made the release today, not sure which day it's scheduled to update, but within a week.
Non-applicable add-ons
In the Number of Geocachers per Badge/Addon section, is it possible for the bot to replace 0 with - for addons that aren't applicable to the badge? E.g. the lostfound add-on the the Achiever badge. Optimist on the run (6278087) (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2022 (CET)
- It has been suggested to me before, and I agree it would look much nicer and be a lot more readable. But due to how the rule-set is stored it's quite complex. In simple terms, there is just code, there is no list of which badges can have which addon. While a list of course can be created, it will become a redundancy where it's likely that the list won't be updated. The correct approach is to let such list include references to the code somehow. But that's a bit too much work. --magma1447 (3305483) (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2022 (CET)
- Thanks. It may be possible to do something using templates - I'll try something later. Optimist on the run (6278087) (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2022 (CET)
- That would be very cool. And to not say the least, I would see it as pure magic. --magma1447 (3305483) (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2022 (CET)
- Thanks. It may be possible to do something using templates - I'll try something later. Optimist on the run (6278087) (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2022 (CET)
