CGI/Perl Guide | Learning Center | Forums | Advertise | Login
Site Search: in

  Main Index MAIN
INDEX
Search Posts SEARCH
POSTS
Who's Online WHO'S
ONLINE
Log in LOG
IN

Home: Perl Programming Help: Intermediate: Re: [stuckinarut] HASH-O-RAMA Data Processing Problem: Edit Log



Zhris
Enthusiast

Apr 12, 2015, 11:18 PM


Views: 10931
Re: [stuckinarut] HASH-O-RAMA Data Processing Problem

Hi,

No problem at all.

I have actually changed the LOG codes to suitable labels instead:
- 1 is now submitted
- 0 is now unsubmitted
- - is now invalid


Quote
Using K2QBN as an example, it shows 'EVAN' as the name, but I remember there was also a CNQ with 'VAN' in the Weights file.


Remember at phase2, after the weights log was generated at phase1, only names and qths that are >= wtf threshold will be included ( the same information as the scores log ). VAN has a wtf of just 1.

phase2 being the core automation phase ignores anything it deciphered to be invalid, afterall thats automation for you. You should always keep this in mind, the logs generated by phase2 are automated outcomes, don't expect anything the algorithm deciphered to be "useless" to be included.

The log that should be most useful to you is therefore the weights log, since this allows you to fine tune the outcome of phase2. Perhaps we do need to consider extending info in the weights log and / or breaking it up into groups and / or generating other consolidation logs at phase1, enabling you to make the right decisions before phase2. We have already discussed this in some detail, but I don't think we really finalised any ideas.

Also the QID's do indeed make lookups super quick, I used to look at an error call sign, then forget it by the time I opened up the entries, or atleast confuse it with one similar.

One other thing I was thinking was in the scores log under the scores column, it might be nice to do "score/max score", where max score would be the score they would have gotten if they made no errors whatsoever, then perhaps a percentage column i.e. ( ( 100 / max_score ) * score ). I'm not sure if this would be useful to you, but a lower percentage would be a good indication of who is the most error prone, while those with 100% percentage deserve a reward, perhaps a billion bonus points ;-). But of course those with a score of 0/0 would get 100%, and those who didn't submit many entries might be notably less error prone.

Regards,

Chris


(This post was edited by Zhris on Apr 12, 2015, 11:41 PM)


Edit Log:
Post edited by Zhris (Enthusiast) on Apr 12, 2015, 11:18 PM
Post edited by Zhris (Enthusiast) on Apr 12, 2015, 11:23 PM
Post edited by Zhris (Enthusiast) on Apr 12, 2015, 11:25 PM
Post edited by Zhris (Enthusiast) on Apr 12, 2015, 11:37 PM
Post edited by Zhris (Enthusiast) on Apr 12, 2015, 11:38 PM
Post edited by Zhris (Enthusiast) on Apr 12, 2015, 11:39 PM
Post edited by Zhris (Enthusiast) on Apr 12, 2015, 11:41 PM


Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.0

Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads
Visit our Mailing List Archives