As mentioned some time ago in the general Nonosweeper thread, I'd prefer to have some additional rankings which are less sensitive against "lucky punches" (i.e. a record time which is a lot faster than the "normal" times of a player).

I suggest again a ranking of Top10-times. The ranking time for each level would be the sum of the 10 fastest games a player has achieved in that level. Those 10 times can be easily seen together by looking at the "Best times" table available in the Pro Version (see picture on the left of http://www.nonosweeper.com/pro.html).

For missing times (if anyone has completed less than 10 games in a level), a penalty time is counted. I propose the last listed time of a player, with an additional penalty of 10% of that time.

An example: My genius times are 216, 299, 322, 367, 607. So, my penalty times 6 to 10 would be 607 + 607·10% = 607 + 61 (always rounded up to next integer!) = 668. My ranking sum for Genius level would be 216+299+322+367+607+668·5=5151

If that is too difficult to calculate, we can take 999 as time for all missing ones.

Btw, I'm quite sure that, finally, no one will really care about the calculation of the penalty as to get in direction to the top of the rankings, you will have to achieve ten decent times regardless what the penalty algorithm is.

I know that at least Roland Seibt likes the idea of a ranking of Top10 times.

What does the rest think of it? Any comments or ideas?

Hi, as a new member of the forum I can now repeat what Stephan said. I like the idea of the Top-10or5-ranking very much. I like the calculation idea of the last stat. But considering for genius I think it'd be better to let people only join in general when 5 v 10 are finished. Thinking myself back a few months I was so happy completing genius even in 999secs. So it doesn't have to be a disadvantage taking that as penalty time.... Me switching now to other topic. Happy Nonosweeping.

I still prefer 10 over 5. lloyd, the 5 scores uploaded are the 5 best scores uploaded which is not necessarily the same the the 5 best scores overall.

I suggested 10, because in the Best Times window of the Pro version, there are listed 10 times. It might be easy to calculate the sum of those times and then create an url to upload the sum (maybe implemented in version 1.4?)

About the penalty: I uploaded every personal best as soon as possible to get a better rank in the ranking. I would have done this even if I had a worse average. Yariv, I think, there won't normally be a player who has finished only one single Genius game, but that one in 204. It's always a process of practising. That's another reason why to take Best Times and not Best Uploaded Times. A player who plays fast won't look at the timer until he has finished - and then, the game is saved regardless whether he likes having it in his Top10.

Maybe, we should wait on some more opinions...

OK, the problem is that the best times list stored locally can be edited by hand - so it can't be used in the rankings because people will cheat. Even if I change this, you would have to lose all the scores achieved up to now. 

At present, you can avoid putting your time into the list by closing the name entry screen, but anyway, I think players WILL start checking the timer before clicking the last square if there is a chance that the score could move them down the rankings, and I don't want to create an incentive not to finish games!

So I think we have to make it a matter of choice which scores are uploaded and used in the rankings - therefore it would be possible to have only one very good score in the database.
Either way, you must agree that the 216 / 204,220 situation is a problem.

You said that "I uploaded every personal best as soon as possible to get a better rank in the ranking. I would have done this even if I had a worse average" - this is reasonable (notwithstanding the above problems) because PBs will always move you up, but the question arises when you get a good score that isn't a PB - it shouldn't move you DOWN the rankings unless you have only a few scores AND it's substantially worse than your average.

@Jon: I never upload at once. I save the URL (there is an option to "Get URL") and then upload it when I'm connected to the internet next time.

Just a minor point, but if a score fails to upload due to internet problems, you can still grab the URL retrospectively from lastURL.txt and try again later. (from v1.3)

Good idea for the penalty, I think, but I'm not sure what you mean with "available scores". Uploaded ones?

I'd still prefer the Top10 idea, with the scores listed in the best times window. So, everyone can prove by screenshot if necessary.

It took a major rewrite (because it can't be done with a single SQL query any more), but I've finally done the rankings! Am I brilliant or what?!
It takes too long to query all the data each time you view the rankings, so I've had to construct a table which holds the averages and is (or should be) updated when someone uploads a new score - I'm too knackered to test it properly tonight, so please let me know if it isn't updating or doing what it's supposed to! Ta