Thanks for the feedback, guys!


Fixed!


This'll happen tonight.

Msgreg, the search functionality was busted due to user-error on my part. I want to add more options (state, chapter), but for now it just uses "any name matching '...' "

And of course, it's not even 500 lines of python code yet, so, feel free to jump in!

There's a huge problem here. Front and center on my most played opponents is my perfect loss rate against Daniel Chou, your code is reminding me of my failures!

As far as feature requests, what's the feasibility of throwing up other interesting stats, like those in KGS analytics? Or even, just giving us an SQL query prompt, so that we can ask our own questions of the database?

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

The feasibility of other queries & analytics is very high! Again, the code is really easy to write & understand, so hopefully a few interested folks will fork & give me some help

Feasibility of a sql prompt is not so high

And as for the 0-5 record you have against daniel, where's your pity for me? I have to look at my 1-4 record against you every time

Feasability of a download/torrent of the database (minus any private information that might be present)?

_________________
Occupy Babel!

At this point there is no possibility to release the database data outside of the AGAGD. This may change in the future but it would right now it is not an available option.
--AGA Server Admin

_________________
Decisions are made by those who show up.
and possibly those willing to attend secret meetings in ancient basements

Thank you! I've wanted this ability for awhile, since my impression is that the AGAGD doesn't account for all of my games. And, I can confirm that none of my self-pair games from the 2012 US Go Congress are in there. Does anyone know what's up with that?

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I've made a few improvements: The winner of a game now has their name shaded green -- it's a little messy, though, what do you guys think?



I'm not sure; I'd send an e-mail to ratings@usgo.org; it's quite possible that the self-pair director hasn't submitted the games yet to be rated -- in which case, a little reminder can't hurt

I like it - a definite improvement.

- gurujeet

I like it - a definite improvement.

- gurujeet

I like it, it looks good. It also takes away one more column and makes the data cleaner.

_________________
Decisions are made by those who show up.
and possibly those willing to attend secret meetings in ancient basements

Wow - the new system looks great!

A possible improvement would be to program the the two list displays (Game List and Opponent List) so that they show up in their own embedded item which can change independently as you advance through the pages without refreshing the whole page. Sorry if this was already mentioned. Also, I don't know the programming complexity of it.

_________________
Ko is the best solution.
With Ko, I can keep eating and drinking until I am full.

Visit >>>Koosh's Study Journal<<<

Thanks guys!

I've added the feature to see a list of recent tournaments a given player has played in. Any other quick & easy requests?

Seems a little messy to me, when combined with the alternating coloring for the rows. I'd prefer either alternating color for the rows, or highlighted winner names, but not both.

Also: When there is more than one page of games in a tournament, the "Next" button on the tournament information page appears to be broken, it keeps showing me the first page. I don't see any way to get to subsequent pages.

Also: The "recreated wall list" looks a little odd for handicap games. For those games, the entry for the black player looks something like <otherplayernumber><+/->/b<handicap>, which is good. But for the white player, the handicap value listed is always zero. That makes it hard for the white player to see what handicap the game used, since he has to go find the correct entry for the corresponding black player to find the handicap. But I'm no expert on this, perhaps this is just how these recreated wall lists are supposed to look?

Nevertheless, it is mostly looking great, I really appreciate having this!

the database has one tournament recorded twice -- which is/was adversely affecting peoples ratings (5 wins become 10, 5 losses become 10).

I've reported this error quite some time ago (feels like its been a couple of years, but I'd have to dig up my old emails to be sure), but its never yet been corrected.

these two events are in fact the same single event:
http://test.agagd.usgo.org/tournaments/port20021013/
http://test.agagd.usgo.org/tournaments/port20021012/

I've had at least one tournament I was in where the result was reported incorrectly, also. I'm not sure what to do about it anymore, as it was more than a year ago at this point and my inquiries at the time went unreplied.

Perhaps some sort of formal correction procedure?

I sent an email to ratings@usgo.org and to agagd@usgo.org and got a quick reply (of course, I got quick replies last time too -- so I just keep trying). Can't really get much more formal than these two email addresses (unless of course you appeal directly to the president). Just remember, that on the other end of those addresses are human volunteers (just like you and me), who get busy and forget, and this is not their full-time job. I, myself am still on one or more usgo mailing list as well.

in my case, it turns out the Tournament Director for this old event sent two reports (perhaps the second was supposed to be a corrected version of the first). But instead of nullifying one over the other, both were entered with almost, but not quite identical data.

I really don't like that shade of green, especially considering that there is another shade of green that means something completely different. I prefer this to the previous solution, but it could still be improved. How about bolding the winners name?

What is the status of the database? test.agagd.usgo.org continues to work, but agagd.usgo.org still says that it's disabled.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

since everyone seems to know about it and uses it regularly anyway, then maybe we should just change the name.

I assume it has the same security concerns as before?

My understanding was that the test site was a test of the agagd with security issues fixed, though I may be wrong.