BUG: Favourite Point percentage incorrect

[+The Blue Quasar]

Generally I'm pretty good at math.  This has me stumped.

 

https://coord.info/GC7E7RJ has always been a Premium Member Only cache. 

It has 34 Favourite Points.  It has been found 50 times.  To me, that is 68% but the site says 72% which is too high.

There are five players that were Premium Members that are currently Basic Members.  34 out of 45 would be 76% which is too high again.

Of the five, two gave a Favourite Point and the other three did not.  

 

The only math that works is 34 Favourite Points were given by 45 current Premium Members plus 2 Past Premium Members, and the other three Past Premium Members who found it but didn't give a Favourite Point were ignored.

 

34 / (45 + 2) = 72.3 %

 

I mean, I guess I should be happy that my cache shows 72%..... but it feels weird since that seems like a strange formula to use.

[+niraD]

4 minutes ago, The Blue Quasar said:

There are five players that were Premium Members that are currently Basic Members.

Are you sure? Maybe they were always basic members, found it with a premium member, and used one of the alternative methods to log their finds.

[+K13]

You said two former PM gave a FP to the cache. Are they included in the 34 shown to have awarded a FP?  If not, perhaps there is a disconnect between the FP total shown and the number used for the % calculation. (34 + 2)/50 = 72%

[+Hynz]

Was it ever revealed (or reverse engineered) how exactly this percentage is calculated?

If and how are changes of PM memberships taken into account?

[Moun10Bike]

When I calculate the FP% using my own script for that cache, I get 72.34%. I'm looking at accounts that were premium at the time that they found the cache (47) and then comparing how many of those awarded an FP (34). 34 / 47 = 72.

 

(Yes, I'm aware that people can retroactively award FPs if they become premium after finding the cache. It's just that most FPs are awarded at the time of the find, and this way a cache is not penalized by being found by someone who later became premium and didn't go back to retroactively award FPs.)

[+The Blue Quasar]

23 hours ago, niraD said:

Are you sure? Maybe they were always basic members, found it with a premium member, and used one of the alternative methods to log their finds.

 

Yes, actually.  I know all five of them personally.

[+The Blue Quasar]

2 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

When I calculate the FP% using my own script for that cache, I get 72.34%. I'm looking at accounts that were premium at the time that they found the cache (47) and then comparing how many of those awarded an FP (34). 34 / 47 = 72.

 

Yup, that's what I got as well.

 

What got me curious is the three other people that were previously Premium, didn't give a FP, and now are not Premium.  Like I said in my reply to niraD, I know all five personally and none of them would have been basic members when they logged the cache which has always been PMO.  I guess I just wondered why their valid finds were not included in the calculation.

 

But yes, if the calculation is FPs divided by PMOs that gave FP at the time they found it, then it makes sense.  And I appreciate not loosing percentage points when someone drops from PM to BM.  Impressive that HQ took that into account.