"Raj Rijhwani" <raj@rijhwani.org> wrote

spam_dump@btinternet.com "Nick M V Salmon" wrote:

"Raj Rijhwani" <raj@rijhwani.org> wrote

vector@vector.net "Vector" wrote:
You call a flicker of 25 in 24000 big?  I could be wrong, but I very
much doubt that positions are re-assessed in real time with every unit
returned.

Rank is re-assesed in realtime - try sending a single result in. ;-)

The

'more than X% of users' figure is re-assesed against a total number of

users

that only increases every few hours...

Ah yes - but that could simply be your *apparent* rank, relative to
the last statically assessed positions.  Otherwise you have a lot of
potential shifting and shuffling to do with just the return of one
unit.

True.  A way to test that one would be check my rank every hour or so and
see if I move downward - I'm far enough up the list it should change quite
quickly methinks.

Hokay, looks like you're correct Raj - rank is very probably assesed against
a static table produced every X hours; I checked my 'rank' at UK midnight
with 19,328 results & at UK 1:40am with the same number of results - my rank
remained the same at 4,097 & I'm listed as the only person with that rank -
it seems likely that at least some folks close under that rank have sent a
bunch of results in since midnight & passed me thus my rank ought to have
dropped.

I'll check again later on without sending any results in to see how long it
is before there are any changes...

Ciao...

[UK]_Nick...
-- 
Nick M V Salmon  Master Mariner  MN(Retd.)

My four initials@btinternet.com