Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 09:55:34 AM

Quote from: dragonvslinux on March 12, 2023, 04:25:24 PM

It's understandable. That's why I was thinking if the data was already refined to only DT1! inclusions/exclusions, it'd be a lot less data to parse (presumably). But then there's still the issue of thousands of users on DT2 -1, that in all honesty I don't really care about either. There's probably a logical way to parse the data without it taking too long though I imagine, I just wouldn't know how.

I think it's best if I scrape the total DT-strength for all users on DT1 and DT2, instead of just DT2. If it's just DT2, the gaps in the data can either mean the user is on DT1 that month, or the user has a negative DT2-strength. I don't think that gives an accurate overview, so it's better to show the total "DT-strength". What do you prefer?

Yes makes sense. I'd prefer the general overview without being effected by DT lottery changes as it were. As then can also compare DT-strength of DT1 and DT2 members combined.

Ideally there'd still be the DT1 data (as you have done for many weeks now) as this data is a lot easier to manage (less of it). Not sure how well spreadsheet will happen a full DT-strength dump Wink

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 09:55:34 AM

I agree it makes no sense to show users with negative DT2-strength, but what about users who've had both positive and negative strength? If they go from 2 to 0 it doesn't them do justice if they should have been at -5.

Again makes sense, as I imagine the list wouldn't be that much longer then. Also can compare how many users were DT2 and no longer are, compared to how many are still DT2.