Efficiency

[kriu]

The new efficiency ratio is simply wrong

[Knickohr]

Yes, thats correct !

But without the "denominator", poor performing station will be pushed up, if they sending a lot of signals (and maybe a few more strokes). Thats not good for the network.



You see the difference ?  I find the red graphic fair. It doesn't denominate good performing station, but suppresses heavy signal-jammer. And it also shows good performing stations with less signals at the right side in the graph, not only on the left side.

Thomas

[Gerhard.Wittevee]

But without the "dominator", poor performing station will be pushed up, if they sending a lot of signals (and maybe a few more strokes). Thats not good for the network.

Hi Thomas,

But as the screenshot I posted shows; A station with Less strikes and more signals is ranked higher. The 2 stations I compared here are only 10km apart. 
   
I agree with Kriu. This can not be right.

[Knickohr]

Its depends on how less and how more

Thomas

[Gerhard.Wittevee]

Its depends on how less and how more

Thomas

I attached a screenshot. So you can see how less and how more...

Gerhard

[Knickohr]

It has something to do with this :

"This is the old effectivity value multiplied by the factor min (Strikes / Signals(s), Signals(s) / Strikes)."

Thomas

[Gerhard.Wittevee]

It has something to do with this :

"This is the old effectivity value multiplied by the factor min (Strikes / Signals(s), Signals(s) / Strikes)."

Thomas

Read that.... it is posted in this thread.
Or do you think sending more signals and less strikes is better?? I guess you know better...

I hope Egon, or one of the developers finds time to reply

Gerhard

[Gerhard.Wittevee]

It has something to do with this :

"This is the old effectivity value multiplied by the factor min (Strikes / Signals(s), Signals(s) / Strikes)."

Thomas

Read that.... it is posted in this thread.
Or do you think sending more signals and less strikes is better?? I guess you know better...

I hope Egon, or one of the developers finds time to reply

Gerhard

[Egon]

Hi Folks,

I am really impressed by your ambition to analyze the effectivity in such detail.

If we find a more useful computation, I will change it, no problem, but I need arguments not only suggestions to improve own stations.


Let us recal the  notations and the original value I have used in the past.

The values consider the last hour.

Strikes (x,s) = number of strikes computed by our network in a rage of x km to station s

Hits (x,s) =  number of strikes computed by our network in a range of x km to station s at that station s was involved

Signals (s) = number of signals of station s

Strikes() = total number of strikes computed by our network in the region to that the station sends data (note that some border stations send strikes to several regions)

min (x,y) = minimum of x and y

The old values for the effectivity of a station S were:

Effecitivity S = Hits (50km, S) / Strikes (50km)
Effecitivity M = Hits (500km, S) / Strikes (500km)
Effecitivity L = Hits (5000km, S) / Strikes (5000km)

The disadvantages are the following:

1.) A station S with very very low Hits (5000km, S) can easily get an Effectivity L of 100% if it is placed in a region where all computations can only be done with the help of this station (for example, a border position). Stations in densely populated areas usually get lower values.

2.) If Signals (s) increases, then often Hits (5000km, S) also increases a little bit. Some stations have tenfold its Signals (s) only to increase its effectivity by 1 percent. This increases the load of our servers significantly


So I have added the additional factor:

min (Strikes / Signals (s), Signals (s) / Strikes)

And now your suggestions for a more adequate computation of an effectivity.

[Knickohr]

And now your suggestions for a more adequate computation of an effectivity.

No suggestion, I agree with Egon. I have advantages for all my stations. case 1 (Namibia) and case 2 (Germany). Heavy signal-jammer should be suppressed.

Thomas