Wenn schon danach gefragt wird:
Ich fände es gut, wenn “Changesets per weekday” weiter angezeigt würde.
Wenn ich einen mapper anschreibe und hier sehen kann, daß er normalerweise nur am Wochenende akktiv ist, dann weiß ich, daß ich auf ein Wochenende warten muß um Antwort zu bekommen.
Since the question has been raised:
I’d like it if ‘Changesets per weekday’ were still displayed.
If I message a mapper and can see here that they’re usually only active at the weekend, then I know that I’ll have to wait until the weekend to get a reply.
(Deepl)
Ich kann die Argumentation nachvollziehen. Kann diese nützliche Info aber nicht auch aus dem angezeigten Kalender entnommen werden? Ja, es ist anders aufbereitet/dargestellt, aber diese Begründung habe ich bereits häufiger erhalten …
I admit that numbergoingupism for Main Activity coverage convinced me to take few bike trips over last months :)
are any other expected to be removed? I was one of people asking to remove deep history of username changes and do not care about these two, but I would be sad to lose many of other overall statistics.
I think that these are somewhat useful, if only to tell me “Go to bed!”.
If there is a desire to give people a bit of privacy, perhaps only let the individual account holder view it.
“% Changesets per hour UTC” could do with being calculated to the nearest 0.1%. It’s a bit ‘lumpy’ for me.
It would be nice if you could explain each of the statistics, e.g. people have been curious to know about reverted changes. It is often about innocuous things and not the DWG cracking down on someone.
I have already limited the display of notes and the OSM discussion page on individual contributor pages a bit.
Since I have not received any (negative) feedback about that from anyone, I assume it did not bother people too much.
At the moment, I do not have any specific further removals planned, but I am open to feedback if there are particular statistics that people feel should be hidden, limited, or explained better.
Hide the number of edits and changesets so as to discourage people from mapping inane details, e.g. mapping every tree in a row individually instead of as a line, simply because it means that they have mapped “more”.
Some people think too much about their quantity of edits and changesets, but think nothing of the quality of their edits and changesets.
counter of QA errors and “errors” needs at least a disclaimer - I have seen more than once people knowingly breaking data “because I want my error count go to 0 at HDYC”
The idea behind showing these numbers in HDYC was originally a mix of gamification and giving contributors a more direct way to reflect on their own mapping activity from a QA perspective.
I know of a few cases where this has backfired, but I have also had people reach out to say that they really liked it and found it motivating. I can not really back this up with statistics either way, unfortunately.
Personally, I would be a bit sad to remove them completely, but moving them further down would be fine with me. Whether that really makes them less prominent is a different question.
Maybe this is a question for the administrators: Should the recent posts be split off into a separate thread? They no longer really relate to the originally reported issue.
In my blog post, I mentioned that I might hide some of the diagrams in HDYC, and I also asked for feedback on that. Some of you have already responded here and it seems that several people would like the diagrams showing hours and days to remain visible.
This morning, I spent some time thinking about and experimenting with possible ways to implement this. One idea I have had for a while is the following: since HDYC only works with an OSM login anyway, I could use the number of active contribution days of the logged-in user to decide whether they get to see a contributor’s full profile, or possibly only a reduced version.
There would be one exception: “public profiles”. If you have a link to your HDYC profile on your OSM profile page, the full HDYC profile would still be accessible without a login. You can see an example of what the syntax should look like on my profile page: pitscheplatsch | OpenStreetMap
There have already been a few discussions here in the forum about whether simply creating an account should be enough to get “full access” to OSM. I have now tried using the number of active contribution days of the logged-in user to decide whether they can see the full profile of another contributor, or only something like a lite version. I would be very interested in your feedback on this.
As the threshold, I chose 42 days of active contribution to OSM, similar to the threshold used by the OSMF. However, while the OSMF only counts active mapping days, meaning days with map edits, HDYC uses the recently implemented activity calendar for this calculation. This means that notes and changeset comments are also taken into account when determining the number of active contribution days.
Maybe this could be a possible solution: not only requiring the user to be logged in, but also allowing a contributor, somewhat similar to the API, to gradually unlock full access through their number of active contribution days.
If you go the graduated reveal route would you always make that user’s view of their own profile the full view regardless of their number of contributions?
Ah, thank you @InsertUser, good point! I have just added this.
This means that users can always see their own full profile on HDYC, regardless of their number of contributions. I had not considered that case before, but I think most people would probably expect it to work that way.
The issue with those QA stats is that some don’t reflect who’s fault it was. Meanwhile osmose show a “disclaimer” that those might not “my faults”. So not sure it’s a good indicator.
Btw. If a mapper adds a fixme (which is a good thing) osmose counts it as an issue.
