There’s something that bugs me on the dashboard: how score percentages work.
Percentages are fine I think as they clearly show how bad scores are, or not.
However, I bet any regular user not too aware of Nodes internal workings would expect the node to get disqualified/suspended when a score reaches 0%, not the arbitrary number “60%”.
Which could make them think that a current score of 65% is not too bad, where it is in fact a pretty low score showing a serious and urgent issue!
Wouldn’t it be clearer to display scores between 0 and 100 instead of 60~100?
Internally the score could still be a number between 0 and 1, disqualifying/suspending nodes when it goes below 0.6, but maybe the percentage displayed on the dashboard could map 0.6 to 0% and 1 to 100%?
EDIT: I think @kevink’s idea of reversing the way of counting percentages is actually pretty good, let me quote them:
EDIT2: Related thread where the idea has been already suggested, with the addition of renaming labels to make more sense:
I mentioned that before too. It would indeed be a good thing.
Additionally however, we sometimes have people wondering about “Suspension 100%”, so “why is my node suspended?”, clearly not understanding the word “score” behind it.
So I would actually even prefer to change the whole semantic to: Suspended 0% if everyting is fine and Suspended 100% if the score drops below 0.6.
That would make it very clear to everyone (except the SNOs that are already used to the current system, they might be confused…)
It’s a tough one to change once a certain perception has manifested itself…
However, I agreed that it could be improved.
Perhaps a color coding (green -> yellow -> red) could supplement the scores for easy TLDR’ish understanding, and a mouse-over action could give an explanation and the raw score for “advanced users/operators” ?
@Alexey You’re right. That’s only when displaying data for one particular satellite though. I guess it wouldn’t hurt to display it on the “all satellites” page, because right now there is no tooltip on this view: (version 1.15.3):
Well I’m obviously going to have to vote for this one. I’ve actually implemented this in the earnings calculator for audit failures and suspension already. 0% being everything is good and 100% being suspension or disqualification. Additional benefit is that with suspension you can go over 100% and you can see how close you are to recovering from suspension mode as well.
I still have uptime as a 100% for perfect uptime though. But I could flip that around too if needed. I definitely would if the web dashboard is going to follow the same principle.
@Alexey asked me previously to align with the web dashboard, but given the small amount of space I had in the layout of the earnings calculator and the likelyhood of confusion when it says suspension 100%, I decided against that at the time.
So yeah, I’m using (1 - score) * 250. Would be great if the web dashboard did the same thing.
Your version is confusing, well, at least to me.
I think it would be best if the dashboard showed a bargraph indicator that goes from zero to 100, with the current score and the threshold for bad things marked on it. The numeric score could be displayed ads well.
It probably is, it’s just more confusing than the actual score with the threshold shown together. Probably because it essentially is a “percentage of percentage”. Or maybe I am not used to thinking like that.
Well the score wasn’t a percentage to begin with. So it was always kind of wrong to show the score as a percentage. By making this change the percentage actually shows how close you are to being suspended or disqualified, which is why the percentage sign is correct in that setup.
I haven’t heard it be called more confusing before though. That’s interesting. I think that might be in part because you’re already familiar with the underlying actual score. I would argue that the end user shouldn’t worry about the underlying score at all and simply think of their reputation as the scores as displayed.
So yeah, I agree with @kevink, but I still find it interesting to hear the other side.
Basically, to me, the real score is kind-of like percentage. I know it’s a bit more complicated than that, but IIRC in the short term it does behave like a percentage, I fail x% of audits, my score becomes 100-x (or 1-x/100). Then there is a lower limit after which bad things happen.
Uptime score is actually a percentage though, again, with a lower allowed limit. It is measured in a more complicated way, but it behaves kind-of like that.
Your version, to me is confusing because I am trying to understand what it means and it’s a bit difficult.
The new score is 100-(current_score-0.6)/0.004. Or, the inverted percentage difference between the current score and the lower limit. I guess it’s OK, it just makes me do mental math that I would not need to do otherwise.
Then again, I know what the actual score means, maybe if I didn’t, your version would be better.
I’s probably the inverted part that gets me, it kind-of feels like if the gas gauge in my car did not show the gas level, but instead showed how much gas I have used compared to the tank, given that, say, 20% remaining is the lower limit. I fill up the tank, the needle is at zero, then as I’m driving, it climbs up, until it shows 100%, at which point I know that I’m almost out of gas.
It would probably be less confusing to me if was not inverted - started at 100% and went down to zero at the point of “bad things happening”.
This is actually nowhere close. The score drops much faster. And you can’t fail anywhere near 40% of the audits. Which makes the percentage sign very misleading. I’d be surprised if a node could survive long term with 2% missing data.
I get that the inversion is confusing. I opted for that because there is no good naming for the suspension score that doesn’t sound like it isn’t a bad thing. Unknown audit score is used in the code, but that’s a seriously confusing name. Since the name is a negative, the score should reflect the negative. So I’m calling it a suspension score and a disqualification score.
That’s where the gas analogy falls apart. The gas gauge represents how much gas you have, but the suspension score doesn’t represent how much suspension you have.
I get where you’re coming from and I would be fine with 100 being perfect and bad things happening at 0. But we would need a different and better name for the suspension score in that case.
The score is a ratio between alpha and alpha+beta, so it;s kind-of liek a percentage, even though it does not represent the percentage of audits.
How about “critical audit score”, “non-critical audit score” and “uptime score”? High score = good, low sore = bad. Critical - the one that results in DQ, non-critical, the one that results in suspension.
As for the analogy, I guess I am used to 100% being “good”, be that uptime, the amount of gas I have, battery charge level etc, though I guess I could look at it as the amount of passes on a tape = high number means the tape is almost worn out, though I would probably still instead look at the “wear” remaining.
