Folding Forum

Hola,

There seems to be an inconsistency on the official F@h stats pages. When looking at my personal stats page, I'm currently ranked 312 (https://stats.foldingathome.org/donor/id/471051899). When looking at the generic donor all time ranking overview, I'm currently ranked 295 (rather difficult to link to, but https://stats.foldingathome.org/donor, all time stats). As this is basically the same page, apparently using different sources for the two views, this is remarkable.

I won't ever reach the top 100 anyway, so I pretend not to be bothered all that much with the ranking, but this inconsistency simply bugs me since I noticed a while ago And yes, I know, the rank in the EOC info below sits nicely in between, but afaik EOC uses a different ranking system (user/group combo vs user name), so that doesn't count.

Were you looking at Monthly or All Time on the second link/chart?

I was comparing with the all time stats. My monthly rank currently is a bit over 100.

At one time an older version of the stats page stated personal stats were ranked excluding "Anonymous" and something else I don't recall. Just Anonymous will account for part of the difference as there are 6 different entries for various teams including the default team 0. The other stats not included in the personal rankings were from an aggregate group that was not linked to individuals.

Well, looking at the all time donor overview I see 3 Anonymous entries in the top 14, so they are not aggragated into 1 entry. Still, on the all time overview I am ranked 17 spots higher than on my personal stats page. So that is still weird.

Of course there are different ways of calculating the rankings, and one isn't per se better or worse than the other. But the all time overview using a different ranking than the personal pages is inconsistent. Imho, both views should use the same (logical) calculation, and should show the same rankings. Right now it's like having two clocks, showing different times and both turning at different speeds.

I know, this is not a big issue, but still annoying that even two official F@h pages can't agree.

Interesting find, but I have no idea where the differences might lie. Individual vs all time rankings were only off by 1 work unit, and about 700K points between them. The strange thing is the individual showing the one extra work unit shows the lower overall points score.

In my case I won't have to worry about the discrepancy, as it is doubtful I will ever reach the top 1000 to see if there is one. So you are somewhat gifted a "super folder" problem of not knowing your exact ranking. A true first world problem.

Not that I disagree it would be nice if they were the same. And though I only speak for myself, I'm sure many others would join me in thanking you for such a major contribution. With so few people in the world doing this stuff, the contributions of those pushing the science more and more quickly is really important.

Simply heating my apartment with science instead of burning fossil fuel Granted, we so far don't have much of a winter here, so the PC's can keep up rather well.