You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 14, 2020. It is now read-only.
Since we'll be having /api/v1/mods/trending, we might as well come up with a algorithm for it:
A more possible algorithm would be:
Trending Qualification (TQ) - ( Aggregate Downloads / Average Downloads from Top 10 Mods from the past 12 hours).
Supposedly our aggregate is 1400 downloads from the most downloaded mods (excluding the candidate entry), and candidate hits 8,500. If result is not negative, and in decimal, we can directly assume that is a percentage of download traffic increase beyond regular parameters.
all in all:
1400/12 = 116.667;
8500/116.667 = 78.85% increase of download traffic compared to top 10 downloaded mods.
For a mod to qualify, they have to hit at least get 50% or more in average download traffic score to be in trending.
This is not really refined and could be changed, RFC for possible better calculation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Since we'll be having
/api/v1/mods/trending
, we might as well come up with a algorithm for it:A more possible algorithm would be:
Trending Qualification (TQ) - ( Aggregate Downloads / Average Downloads from Top 10 Mods from the past 12 hours).
Supposedly our aggregate is 1400 downloads from the most downloaded mods (excluding the candidate entry), and candidate hits 8,500. If result is not negative, and in decimal, we can directly assume that is a percentage of download traffic increase beyond regular parameters.
all in all:
1400/12 = 116.667;
8500/116.667 = 78.85% increase of download traffic compared to top 10 downloaded mods.
For a mod to qualify, they have to hit at least get 50% or more in average download traffic score to be in trending.
This is not really refined and could be changed, RFC for possible better calculation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: