Quote from: ibminer on Today at 05:47:08 PM

Are you taking into account the fluctuations of 1,000 other users, based on when they were last refreshed? [...]

The formula for most recognized is accounting for activity, trust, and earned merit.. just because you jumped in earned/merit doesn't mean someone else didn't jump more in activity and trust and become more "recognized"... plus, the aforementioned DT1/2 shuffle each month would effect this score also.

I understand... I did not take into account the DT shuffles. In the last example I offered my drawback from Most Recognized ladder happened after I was removed from DT1 after theymos' last shuffle of DT1 users. This may explain...

Regarding the idea to take into account that others could have jumped in activity and / or Trust -- yes, I thought about this, but I did not believe that changes would be so big to determine a decrease of almost 150 positions on a ladder, especially considering that the screenshots were taken at short time intervals one after the other. But, somehow, I think the impact of dropping from DT1 to DT2 has a big impact on this.

Thank you for your explanations!

Quote from: ibminer on Today at 05:47:08 PM

I definitely tried with the initial design to get more tables on there.. the only good way with the current design is to start another row of columns below the current 4.. but it creates a much larger page, more resource intensive, and it wouldn't be as easy to compare in this arrangement.

Oh I see... Then what about this: maybe simply add links somewhere on top of the page to these two ladders? Maybe one at the left of "M" (the "M" from "MATR") and one at the righ of the "R"? Or at any other place you may find suitable? Would that work better?