lichess.org
Donate

The new number #1

@NoTimewasters: I understand that desire, certainly!

So, if I understand you correctly, while the Leaders This Week is nice, you would prefer the overall Leaderboard to be more aggressive than it is currently.

Earlier in this thread it was suggested that the overall Leaderboard requires activity in the last 3 months, but only beginning sometime in May.

I haven't gone through the code, so I'm not sure if that's right, but assuming that is the case, is "played in the last 3 months" active enough?

I guess the specific question to you is how recently players would need to have played for you to be happy with the Leaderboard. If you have a specific suggestion on that front, it should be easy enough to consider for implementation :)
Paragraph #1 - exactly the point I was making.

Paragraph #2 - I think I agree; however perhaps a 3 month limit is a little over liberal. Perhaps just turning up monthly should be something expected of a player wishing to retain their ranking?

If that is not the solution, there IS a solution somewhere - 'tis just a matter of finding it :)
#22 was in answer to Clarkey!

OneOfTheQ:

"So, if I understand you correctly, while the Leaders This Week is nice, you would prefer the overall Leaderboard to be more aggressive than it is currently."

Yes

"Earlier in this thread it was suggested that the overall Leaderboard requires activity in the last 3 months, but only beginning sometime in May.

I haven't gone through the code, so I'm not sure if that's right, but assuming that is the case, is "played in the last 3 months" active enough?

I guess the specific question to you is how recently players would need to have played for you to be happy with the Leaderboard. If you have a specific suggestion on that front, it should be easy enough to consider for implementation :)"

I think at least a game a month is a prerequisite for anyone who wishes to consider themselves a top player, certainly.

Once in three months is a bit silly tbh; not having played for 5 months, and being the replacement no #1 for a cheat, seems ludicrous to me. Then, when you look at the rest of the top 10, it is almost farcical when one realises that 6/10 haven't played for over a month. Perhaps having a once a month rule would keep such players more active. It would certainly mean that inactive accounts weren't being counted.
@NoTimewasters: "Perhaps just turning up monthly should be something expected of a player wishing to retain their ranking?"

So you basically want a "Leaders this month" feature?
Read it all again, Assios.

I simply want a top 10 of players who are not inactive.

There's no other way to explain it :)
It depends on your definition of inactive.

As you said "I think at least a game a month...", Assios was stating that - you want a leaderboards this month feature (as when the 3 month rule kicks in, it'll effectively be a leaderboard this quarter feature).

So, he was using your definition of active (one game a month), and staying on topic.
Multiple leaderboards are really unnecessary if 'active' is defined.

I think it is up to the mods to define what is 'active'. Then we could have a single leaderboard that shows the top players instead of a whole host of quite confusing leaderboards.
Well, then it would seem that the mods have defined active as "playing a game once every 3 months".

This is what you have an issue with; you want it, seemingly, reduced to "playing a game once a month", because that is the definition of active you are using.

Bear in mind, there is also the weekly leaderboard, which you could look at too.
- Well, then it would seem that the mods have defined active as "playing a game once every 3 months". -

Yes, but as Clarkey said in #20: it seems to be broken.
Then use the weekly leaderboard instead until it's not broken?

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.