http://calcg.org/newlogo2.png Not Logged in.
Login | Register

General Discussion Board \ News \ New Author Stat

Click here to log in (you must be logged in to post comments).

New Author StatBarrett


---
-Barrett A
1 Mar 2003, 13:16 GMT

Click here to log in (you must be logged in to post comments).

 
New Author Statzkostik
Although this seems nice it doesn't seem to work right. You also should round those numbers a bit so that they don't appear too long. Also having more files seems to degrade score a lot than having fewer files. I think you should also include file ratings in determining the weight as well.

---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
1 Mar 2003, 22:37 GMT

 
New Author StatBarrett
no Z, it works perfectly. the point is to give an average file rating based on downloads. the more files you have, the less this number will be.

---
-Barrett A
1 Mar 2003, 23:45 GMT

 
New Author StatBarrett
yeah you're probably right about the rounding... you want to do that for me since i don't know how? do 5 or 7 digits.

---
-Barrett A
2 Mar 2003, 09:41 GMT

 
New Author Statzkostik
just go to files.cgi and then to the place where it calculated amount of bandwidth used to downloads. then find that printf line and just copy/paste it. 9 tells how many digits before decimal and 2 after decimal. lemme know if you can't figure it out and i'll help you out when back from work. aight, g2g now. later.

---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
2 Mar 2003, 11:11 GMT
Portal | My Account | Register | Lost Password or Username | TOS | Disclaimer | Help | Site Search | File Archives Copyright © 2002-2019 CalcG.org