User talk:Alka Selzer: Difference between revisions
m (Oops. I guess I ought to sign this.) |
|||
(21 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| style="background-color:#c0c0c0; color:#000000" align="left" valign="top" height="800" | | | style="background-color:#c0c0c0; color:#000000" align="left" valign="top" height="800" | | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
=Age Map?= | |||
Your age map is no longer updating. What's up with that? {{User:VI/S}} 21:22, 3 June 2009 (BST) | |||
: My Server at home broke while I was on vacation *rolleyes*, it is now fixed and updates are running again --{{User:Alka_Selzer/Signature}} 14:43, 4 June 2009 (BST) | |||
::Welcome back! {{User:VI/S}} 15:13, 4 June 2009 (BST) | |||
:::Hello -- still there? The problem has occurred again, it seems. {{User:VI/S}} 05:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
=Good Job!= | |||
Hey, im Bhuwannabe from the Anti-Zombie Squad and i've noticed you monitor almost all of the necronet scans/buildings status's around the scarletwood area of Malton. Just wanted to say keep doing whatever you're doing cause it's great and very helpful!--[[User:Bhuwannabe|Bhuwannabe]] 21:20, 9 May 2009 (BST) | |||
=Static Scans= | =Static Scans= | ||
Hey, god of auto-editing code-bots -- do you think it would be possible to somehow get scans that are, say, 46 days old or older to be replaced on the NT pages with the static image, as [[User:NTScan/The_Henley_Building|here]]? {{User:VI/S}} 22:30, 3 May 2009 (BST) | Hey, god of auto-editing code-bots -- do you think it would be possible to somehow get scans that are, say, 46 days old or older to be replaced on the NT pages with the static image, as [[User:NTScan/The_Henley_Building|here]]? {{User:VI/S}} 22:30, 3 May 2009 (BST) | ||
: That should be fairly easy. As the current bot already calculates age of scans, it ''could'' also edit NTScan/''Buildingname'' and replace FileType=... with gif and Scan=... with missing. I'll give it a try. --{{User:Alka_Selzer/Signature}} 06:23, 4 May 2009 (BST) | |||
:: Alka, I've noticed that on the scan status map, the red scans are not always older than sixty days. Didn't you say you changed the map colour parameters to match the static scan cut-off date? {{User:VI/S}} 16:31, 9 May 2009 (BST) | |||
::: Red begins at 46 days and stays red up to 60 days, after that the last scanimage is also removed and the scans say "older than 60 days". So instead of 46-90 days before, red now covers the 46-60 range. --{{User:Alka_Selzer/Signature}} 15:42, 11 May 2009 (BST) | |||
::::Ah. What do you think about changing it so that the red NTs correspond to missing scans? {{User:VI/S}} 16:54, 11 May 2009 (BST) | |||
:::::Hm we should rethink the whole coloring then. At the moment, we have green=0-7 days, yellow=8-21 days, orange=22-45 days and red=46-60+ days. Scans are useless quite soon, so maybe we should go for something like 0-9,10-29,30-49,50 and remove after 50 days? --{{User:Alka_Selzer/Signature}} 17:53, 11 May 2009 (BST) | |||
Why not 0-5 for scans that count as recent, 6-20 for "old" scans that are at most useful for judging the general status of a location, 21-59 for scans that are old enough to be entirely worthless, but not quite old enough to be completely erased (signifying massive decay of records), and 60+ for scans that are so old that they are to be erased? You'll note that this is an uneven allotment of partitions, particularly with regard to the orange, but this way each colour actually has a meaning, not just a rough indication of age. {{User:VI/S}} 18:54, 11 May 2009 (BST) | |||
: Sounds okay. Let's give it a try, I'm modifying the bot code as i'm typing this... ok, not really. But did it before submitting this ;) Let's see how it turns out at the next run. --{{User:Alka_Selzer/Signature}} 18:59, 11 May 2009 (BST) | |||
::Bravo. {{User:VI/S}} 19:04, 11 May 2009 (BST) | |||
:::OK, I think we might have over done the orange. Perhaps ranking colour by time scale is the best bet after all. I still like having red signify missing scans, but perhaps we ought to even out the colour ranges a bit. {{User:VI/S}} 06:03, 14 May 2009 (BST) | |||
::::We '''can''' have different colors for suburbs and buildings. We can keep the current values for buildings, but use different values for the suburbs as they use the average of the buildings - which means a suburb goes red only if '''all''' buildings are at 60+ days. If we use, say, 40 for that, we'll see a lot more red suburbs, but not buildings. --{{User:Alka_Selzer/Signature}} 06:14, 14 May 2009 (BST) | |||
:::::Ooo, that looks really weird. {{User:VI/S}} 17:47, 16 May 2009 (BST) | |||
::::::A bit, maybe. I think it's okay to have a red suburb when most Buildings in it are orange or red. I don't like the green suburbs when the buildings are yellow. Hm. The "table" below shows current color distribution (0-60). | |||
::::::{| | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:25px; background:Green" | 0-5 | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:70px; background:#EE0" | 6-20 | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:190px; background:#F80" | 21-59 | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:5px; background:Red" | | |||
| Building colors (current) | |||
|} | |||
::::::{| | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:45px; background:Green" | 0-9 | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:95px; background:#EE0" | 10-29 | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:95px; background:#F80" | 30-49 | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:55px; background:Red" | 50+ | |||
| Suburb colors (current) | |||
|} | |||
::::::Maybe changing Suburb to something like this: | |||
::::::{| | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:25px; background:Green" | 0-5 | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:95px; background:#EE0" | 6-25 | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:145px; background:#F80" | 26-54 | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:25px; background:Red" | 55+ | |||
| Suburb colors (planned) | |||
|} | |||
:::::: What do you think? --{{User:Alka_Selzer/Signature}} 09:39, 17 May 2009 (BST) | |||
:::::::To be honest I think I prefer having them on the same scale -- it allows you to have both an immediate visual of scan ages and an overall view that correspond directly to each other so you don't have to switch gears if you want the bigger picture. I expect our best bet in terms of ease of use is to scrap my colours--status idea and just use them as a symbol of age on a linear scale (with the exception of the recent scan bit, since fifteen days is a little too long for a scan to still be called recent, I think). Also, when I had the idea at first I went to talk to the MOB about how fast zeds can drastically change the status of a suburb, and they essentially told me that a scan is worthless after one or two days, so... Yeah. {{User:VI/S}} 02:56, 19 May 2009 (BST) | |||
:::::::: That means, if we're going to keep the 60 day maximum for scans, we could have 6 days for recent (green). The remaining 54 days would be devided by 3 = 18 days each. | |||
::::::::{| | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:30px; background:Green" | 0-6 | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:85px; background:#EE0" | 7-24 | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:85px; background:#F80" | 25-42 | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:85px; background:Red" | 43+ | |||
|} | |||
:::::::: --{{User:Alka_Selzer/Signature}} 18:47, 19 May 2009 (BST) | |||
:::::::::OK, I really like whatever you've got it set to now, but I think you may have got your table wrong...? Isn't it, at the moment, something like this? | |||
:::::::::{| | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:18px; background:Green" | 0-6 | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:51px; background:#EE0" | 7-24 | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:104px; background:#F80" | 25-59 | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:15px; background:Red" | 60+ | |||
|} | |||
:::::::::Anyway, it looks perfect to me. Thanks for putting so much effort into this. {{User:VI/S}} 22:00, 20 May 2009 (BST) | |||
='''Congratulations!'''= | ='''Congratulations!'''= | ||
Line 12: | Line 76: | ||
=Hey, where're you at?= | =Hey, where're you at?= | ||
Hey Alka! I just repaired the Attwell Building and went to update it, only to find I just missed you by a day. Are you still around East Becktown? {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 02:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | Hey Alka! I just repaired the Attwell Building and went to update it, only to find I just missed you by a day. Are you still around East Becktown? {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 02:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I'm still nearby. [[User:Alka_Selzer/Deuterium|Doctor Deuterium]] moved on to [[West Becktown]]. I'll try to get a genny and fuel and head for [[the Oxley Building]]. --{{User:Alka_Selzer/Signature}} 08:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | :I'm still nearby. [[User:Alka_Selzer/Deuterium|Doctor Deuterium]] moved on to [[West Becktown]]. I'll try to get a genny and fuel and head for [[The Oxley Building (West Becktown)|the Oxley Building]]. --{{User:Alka_Selzer/Signature}} 08:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Got [[the Oxley Building (West Becktown)|the Oxley Building]] repaired and powered. Moving on to [[the Sweeney Building]].--{{User:Alka_Selzer/Signature}} 10:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC) | :Got [[the Oxley Building (West Becktown)|the Oxley Building]] repaired and powered. Moving on to [[the Sweeney Building]].--{{User:Alka_Selzer/Signature}} 10:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Ha! Thanks to your NT scan age map I know almost exactly where you are. [[User:VI|VI]] 14:37, 2 April 2009 (BST) | ::Ha! Thanks to your NT scan age map I know almost exactly where you are. [[User:VI|VI]] 14:37, 2 April 2009 (BST) |
Latest revision as of 05:13, 5 December 2009
- Alka Selzer - | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---[ Userpage ]---[ Talk ]---[ My Templates ]---[ NW Recon Map ]---[ NW Scan Map ]---[ Alka Selzer ]---[ Alizia Backhouse ]---[ Doctor Deuterium ]--- |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Age Map?Your age map is no longer updating. What's up with that? CITIZEN VI 21:22, 3 June 2009 (BST)
Good Job!Hey, im Bhuwannabe from the Anti-Zombie Squad and i've noticed you monitor almost all of the necronet scans/buildings status's around the scarletwood area of Malton. Just wanted to say keep doing whatever you're doing cause it's great and very helpful!--Bhuwannabe 21:20, 9 May 2009 (BST)
Static ScansHey, god of auto-editing code-bots -- do you think it would be possible to somehow get scans that are, say, 46 days old or older to be replaced on the NT pages with the static image, as here? CITIZEN VI 22:30, 3 May 2009 (BST)
Why not 0-5 for scans that count as recent, 6-20 for "old" scans that are at most useful for judging the general status of a location, 21-59 for scans that are old enough to be entirely worthless, but not quite old enough to be completely erased (signifying massive decay of records), and 60+ for scans that are so old that they are to be erased? You'll note that this is an uneven allotment of partitions, particularly with regard to the orange, but this way each colour actually has a meaning, not just a rough indication of age. CITIZEN VI 18:54, 11 May 2009 (BST)
Congratulations!...on getting over a hundred scans; it shows your determination, dedication and resourcefulness. Good Work!--Dr Mycroft Chris 13:54, 26 April 2009 (BST) Hey, where're you at?Hey Alka! I just repaired the Attwell Building and went to update it, only to find I just missed you by a day. Are you still around East Becktown? ~ extropymine Talk | NW | 4Corners 02:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
NecroWatchHey again! I was glad to see you come on board at NecroWatch! Your user page is coming along too, I've noticed. Anyway, I just wanted to check in again and say hi, and keep up the good work! ~ extropymine Talk | NW | 4Corners 09:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
NT ScanMapHey, awesome stuff with that by the way (I stalked this discussion on NW talk). I was just here to ask if you could have your script use Template:DangerMapnormala ghost town and Template:DangerMapnotablea ghost town instead of the "abandoned" variations. They're the same templates, but the wording of the status was asked to be changed by another user. I have changed it back so I was hoping to SD the "abandoned" ones in short order, but I don't want to break anything. -- RoosterDragon 21:46, 3 April 2009 (BST)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|