Agree - a link slot once clicked should stay dead for 24hrs regardless of how many different links you put in the slot.
Big NO from me. I see, that it might be good to limit it to the box again, but don´t make a 24hrs rule for each box. This would be a big step back.
In advanced options we can now decide, when the link will be refreshed and I really don´t want to miss this feature again.
For example:
myminicity refreshes at 00:00 and if the only refresh would again be at 07:00, you could click it twice without a second real hit for the city. And with 24 hrs there would be much less clicks, because not all can be online at the same time each day.
Example: You click it normally at 12:00 and can´t do it one day, so you click it at 20:00. The next day you can´t click before 20:00 and because you can only be online at your usual time at 12:00 and not later, you have one day without clicks.
Yarolds is allready a game itself, but please don´t forget the initial purpose, which is to get as many valid clicks to your game-sites as possible!
My suggestion would be showing the 14 slots the whole time in profile, not depending, if there are links in it or not. Advanced options stay as they are. Link will only be refreshed, when the slot is determined to be refreshed and not when you enter a new link.
Or just let it as it is and let us compete at this level. I don´t really mind at this.
My suggestion would be showing the 14 slots the whole time in profile, not depending, if there are links in it or not. Advanced options stay as they are. [b]Link will only be refreshed, when the slot is determined to be refreshed and not when you enter a new link.
I agree - when I said 24hrs I should have added the options you mention should remain.
As you said we should be able to determine when the slot is refreshed and NOT by repeatedly adding new links.
well i dont see the need for 14 slots....4 slots worked good for everyone....u telling me that some people are playing games (beside highest average race) that need 14 slots for links to be shown all the time?
Good families --- even great families --- are off track 90% of the time! The key is that they have a sense of destination. They know what the 'track' looks like. And they keep coming back to it time and time again.
It's like the flight of an airplane. Before the plane takes off, the pilots have a flight plan, they know exactly where they're going and they are going to start off in accordance with their plan. During the course of the flight, wind, rain, turbulence, air traffic, human error and other factors act upon the plane. They move it slightly in different directions so that most of the time the plane is not even on the prescribed flight path! Throughout the entire trip there are slight deviations from the flight plan. Weather systems or unusually heavy traffic may even cause major deviations. But barring anything too major, the plane will arrive at its destination.
Now how does that happen? During the flight, the pilots receive constant feedback. Based on that feedback, they make adjustments so that time and time again, they keep returning to the flight path. The hope lies not in the deviations but in the vision, the plan, and the ability to get back on track.
The flight of that plane is, I believe, the ideal metaphor for group leadership and family life.
I, for one, will continue to trust those in charge to keep our 'plane' on track.
Please accept my thanks and appreciation for the skill and work it takes and pardon me for not contributing as well as I might by offering my support earlier.
More on topic: I would say "YES" for change. How can we get to our destination without it?
~Grandpa
Thriving Dragons
____________________________________
FOOTNOTES, ANNOTATIONS AND CREDITS: The above quote was taken from the book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families, written by Stephen R. Covey, published by Golden Books
Age: 27 Joined: 11 Jun 2008 Posts: 188 Location: Bulgaria
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:10 am
jennielynn wrote:
Darrel wrote:
Hm, that looks good, but only if there are unlimited slots
Unlimited slots would defeat the purpose of this.
Well, that's is what I think, otherwise it would be too costly for everyone to have several liinks all the time, but if he/she removes them, they would be locked. This way it would be good for smaller dynasties, but not so good for the bigger. This would lead to drop of average and credits most of all.
Age: 45 Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 405 Location: Belgium
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:47 pm
stompi you misunderstood me.
My thing is this, as it is now a slot isnt dying once clicked. I want it to go back to the old way of when once you click it its either "dead" until reset, or "dead" until the 24 hr period is up.. this would be dependant on whatever ticked option the owner of the links has set.
Right now people are playing a self inflated average game and thats really not in the spirit and good will of the site and I do not believe this is what yarold had intended when he created the site either.
Now that I have explained my view what do you think?
Also the "unlimited" link slots would indeed destroy the purpose. Why have "unlimited" slots if thats going to let you do what it is many of us are trying to stop from happening now?
_________________ ..No One Special..
Leader of the *~Unity~* Dynasty
Age: 45 Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 405 Location: Belgium
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:48 pm
I love the time option, it stops people from getting jupped (cheated) on clicks. I keep hoping Yarold will consider our most desperate and heart felt pleas.
_________________ ..No One Special..
Leader of the *~Unity~* Dynasty
Age: 27 Joined: 11 Jun 2008 Posts: 188 Location: Bulgaria
Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:16 am
Yarold made this update, but now many people are wondering what is happening with their links and have problems. There are already several topics asking about problems with the links.
This was jut a pool asking if any change is needed in how dyn. ave is calculated.
Curent is calculated by suming all clicks in to dynasty + ally members, then "averaged" over the last 10 days.
I had no idea to what it might be changed at time when poll was created. Now i think it might be omething like change from counting different members insted of different links.
I like the idea of counting the the number of MEMBERS clicked instead of counting Total Links clicked.
We could still share Happy Hour clicks but clicking 14 links all from the same Member would only count as 1 toward Dynasty Averages.
Regarding the math:
Weighted averages divide the sum of the weighted values by the sum of the weights themselves.
For instance, if we had 3 days of totals where:
Day 1 = 70
Day 2 = 80
Day 3 = 90
An average on the 2nd day (70 + 80) / 2 = 75
This could be used to calculate the actual average for the third day.
That way our Personal and Dynasty averages would be more intuitive and reflect actual averages.
It could also be made into a floating 10 day true average simply enough.
In other words, Yes - I'd like to see changes to the way our averages are calculated.
I also like your idea of counting MEMBER clicks better than our current way of counting the number of links clicked.
day 3 ave:
(40+40+46)/3 = 42
day 4 ave:
(40+46+50)/3 = 45,3
(2*42 + 50)/3 = 44,6
So the only REAL average is made by saving the number of clicks of all 10 days and dividing them by 10. (day1 + day2 + ... + day3) / 10
(9*old_ave + today_clicked)/10 is no average, it is just a filter algorithm, which is normally used to reduce for example the signal noise of a measurement.
day 3 ave:
(40+40+46)/3 = 42
day 4 ave:
(40+46+50)/3 = 45,3
(2*42 + 50)/3 = 44,6
So the only REAL average is made by saving the number of clicks of all 10 days and dividing them by 10. (day1 + day2 + ... + day3) / 10
(9*old_ave + today_clicked)/10 is no average, it is just a filter algorithm, which is normally used to reduce for example the signal noise of a measurement.
Respectfully, stompi - your math is wrong.
The final average you have shown (2*42 + 50)/3 = 44.6 as your 'proof' incorrectly averages the days.
To average that specific three day period the equation should include:
Day 2 (40) + Day 3 (46) = 86 / 2 = 43, not 42.
Therefor the 'correct' method for calculating the average during day 2 through 4 inclusive would be:
I have no idea what you mean by "signal noise of a measurement", but it seems that we may agree in a couple points.
1. The current 'ave' isn't an actual average
2. There is room for change.
Question: How do you feel about Yarold's proposed change, "MEMBERS clicked instead of counting Total Links clicked"?
I like it because it would then reflect a non-inflatable number.
Of course people could still influence it -- by having links visible and keeping positive credits <-- both good things.
I suspect that the combined ideas would not be well received. The new Average algorithm combined with counting Member clicks would make things like "Happy Hour" into a way of helping others without personal gain. Some may even hate the idea because the "Dynasty Average" game would finally have a level playing field, one purely based on who is clicking other member and allied links the most.
Helped: 9 times Age: 51 Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 1541 Location: Australia
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:38 am
Only issue I see with a members clicked based average is that it will not be level at all, but will favour the dynasties with the most members? For those that play the highest average game, that could lead to them dropping smaller dynasties & maxing out there own dynasty to get the numbers?
_________________ Do it Legit. You break the rules, don't expect a pleasant outcome
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
Proudly the Emperor of The MOB. The oldest surviving & most successful large dynasty
Helped: 1 Joined: 11 May 2008 Posts: 162 Location: Australia
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 2:52 am
Yep, maxing out would be a problem and incentive for a dynasty to have active allies is reduced. It could lead to active dynasties maxing out their own number to 100 and choosing to ally with the least active dynasties, to weight the average game in their favour.
To maximise dynasty average would I ally with a dynasty where everyone clicks everyday or would I ally with a dynasty with where only half the people click everyday? Incentive gone and a whole new game again.
Only issue I see with a members clicked based average is that it will not be level at all, but will favour the dynasties with the most members? For those that play the highest average game, that could lead to them dropping smaller dynasties & maxing out there own dynasty to get the numbers?
I would assume that what was meant by "Member" clicks would mean members of the alliance. I haven't asked. Elsewise it would be TWO changes, not one.
Given the above situation (with true Averages -AND- 'Alliance Member' not 'Total Links' counted) having 10 alliances of 25 members each would be the same as having 3 large alliances, don't you think?
True averages -AND- Member (or ally) clicks counted would effectively cap the maximum number of clicks that counted toward the dynasty average to 350. The best of the best could tie for the top and the game would end.
I honestly believe that some here would hate that idea. Ambivalence here.
Grandpa, now I understand, what you meant. So with your formula you get the average over all days. And I thought about an average over only a definite number of days, like 10.
For all days, your formula is correct of course.
I would make the sum of the last 10 days divided by 10, because an overall-average brings some problems. What if you have clicked for a year and there was in your dynasty only the chance to get for example about 200 average and then you could make about 600. Another one joins just when the change happenes and even after a year, you could only have 400 and he allready after the first day 600.
For dynasty average it could be basically the same:
For each day is an average calculated:
All clicks divided by the number of members
And then the averages of the last 10 days are summed and divided by 10.
Also possible, but I dont like it so much:
the averages of all members just summed and divided by the number of members.
But the first mentioned method would be more dynamical, faster and more accurate. It would not give you less average, if you let a new one join the dynasty.
To the idea with only members clicked instead of links clicked:
I like the old idea here more.
With the new method, all dynasties would say "you have to show a link everytime, have credits and click all links" and then it is only a question of the number of members in the dynasty+allies.
Yes, stompi. I believe you understand what I'm talking about:
Leveling the playing field.
With a true average in place and counting by Member clicked, instead of total Links, each person on the forum would have numbers that accurately reflect past performance.
It should be a simple matter for all links that have not been clicked to be made visible.
Loyalty and longevity could also be reflected in other statistics (how long the member has been with Yarold's Exchange, or time spent with a specific dynasty).
Much (if not all) of the manipulation we see would be brought to an end.
The benefit of belonging to a dynasty is reduced cost when ones link is clicked.
How can we then argue that having links invisible or having insufficient credits is a good thing?
To continue the idea there could be a ratio created (IF Member Only clicks were the basis) expressing the number of clicks performed versus the number of clicks received.
It would show not only how productive a clicker you are but also show how often your link was available. Combined ratios are not uncommon in business.
This could result in an eventual redesign of the Dynasty Page.
The game of "King of the Mountain" and "Top Dog" there would take on different aspects, but I doubt that it would end.
Nor do I think that it's necessarily a bad thing, only that so many people come to Yarold's Exchange with the expectation of meeting friends who want to share their links.
They typically join a dynasty and the current situation oftentimes leaves them confused. The number of "Why was I kicked from my dynasty?" questions would go down.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
