Yes looks like a bug - fixing...

I'm mostly/only posting this to get a badge for having posted. Also, I'm loving the little trinkets and awards under my profile page. It'll be fun trying to get them all.

Tommy wrote:

I'm mostly/only posting this to get a badge for having posted. Also, I'm loving the little trinkets and awards under my profile page. It'll be fun trying to get them all.

Now, go for the Wordsmith Achievement!  (Note...without spamming )

A good place to post to get that achievement would be the welcome/introduce yourself thread.

Should be fixed now.

I would like to take issue with a couple of the achievements.
First, I love them.  They are a wonderful addition.
There are some unearned ones floating out there however.  For example, >2 years mempership!  One guy was only around for 4 months and that was over two years ago. He still got the badge.

tom wrote:

Should be fixed now.

What/When...It's Not...

Candy Cane wrote:

I would like to take issue with a couple of the achievements.
First, I love them.  They are a wonderful addition.
There are some unearned ones floating out there however.  For example, >2 years mempership!  One guy was only around for 4 months and that was over two years ago. He still got the badge.

I can understand your point.

The membership achievements are based strictly on your date joined. 

I think it would be too difficult to calculate some sort of formula that takes into account how often or recently a person has logged in.   If a player takes a 3 month break and then comes back, do we subtract those three months? What if it was 2 weeks? 3 weeks?

Instead we should leave membership awards alone and in the future come up with awards for consistently logging in and staying active.

Agree the award should be an "active" member award.  Vacation days notwithstanding, members should have an open game at all times to be eligible, and perhaps Premium Membership can guarantee active status.

it'd be easier to determine (and i think less irritating to some) if those that joined and didn't play were culled from the player list entirely (deleted, not disabled). you look at those first 1k players to join and probably 75% of them dropped without ever playing a game, and even higher number that played less than 10 games. my thoughts would be if you join, play less than 10 games and are inactive for a year you get deleted.

weathertop wrote:

it'd be easier to determine (and i think less irritating to some) if those that joined and didn't play were culled from the player list entirely (deleted, not disabled). you look at those first 1k players to join and probably 75% of them dropped without ever playing a game, and even higher number that played less than 10 games. my thoughts would be if you join, play less than 10 games and are inactive for a year you get deleted.

+1

If memory serves, the reason why Tom doesn't delete (only disables) accounts is because of points, and things not evening out (points are taken from the losers and given to the winner).
Deleting the accounts (and the associated records) makes the net +/- not equal to zero.

so if there are 0 games (instead of <10) that suggestion still works.

Assuming they didn't play any privates too, then yes.  Because that screws up other people's private rankings.  Playing any game to the point where you effected points (even a surrender gives points to the winner) and that account needs to stay in the listings. 

That wouldn't mean that Tom (for the sake of your request) couldn't make the rules by which we define the "first 1000 players" more adaptive in some fashion (ie: require more than just an early start date).

there are no private rankings.

oh and i'm thinking that getting rid of the null player ids will help in more ways than some achievement. just general declutter so you can get to relevant data faster.

weathertop wrote:

there are no private rankings.

Not really true, on the Player Stats page there are "Rankings" for Private games.  That said, I believe Tom did do a wipe of super old players at one point for some clean-up, not positive though and not sure it could be completed now/again.

You could just prevent the names from displaying on any public lists while retaining all the pertinent numerical data behind the scenes so they would effectively be deleted.

Yertle wrote:

weathertop wrote:

there are no private rankings.

Not really true, on the Player Stats page there are "Rankings" for Private games.  That said, I believe Tom did do a wipe of super old players at one point for some clean-up, not positive though and not sure it could be completed now/again.

huh. didn't know that.

don't think so (or if he did they're still a shit-ton of deadbeats from the first couple months (in particular). maybe that was for zdisabled? 

What do we do with the boards created by these players.  Toaster and  Viper have recently logged in but haven't played a game in over 6 months.  Alpha has been absent for over 2 years.  Does logging in count as active? Do we make an exception for board designers?