# Forum:Charm logs

i propose we change the charms logs a little. many pages have a drop rate of 0% for some charms, mainly blue. the page that has made me start this thread is the banshees one. it says 0% for blues, but i just got one.

therfore i suggest that the template is changed to say ≈ 0 to show that there is a minimal chance of the drop occuring KDanger ^{Talk} RuneScape Wiki, Y U NO WORK 21:31, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

## Discussion[edit source]

oh and **support**- as nom KDanger ^{Talk} RuneScape Wiki, Y U NO WORK 21:36, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

**Comment** - We could put a message saying that 0% = chances of obtaining are too low to show up on the table **Ciphrius Kane** ^{} 21:39, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

**comment** - whichever is easier really :) KDanger ^{Talk} RuneScape Wiki, Y U NO WORK 21:42, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

**Comment** - I don't know how much probability or statistics you guys have studied, but right now the percentages are displayed with a 95% confidence level based on the data that has been submitted. They shouldn't be confused with the actual probability of receiving the drop though. - Suppa chuppa ^{Talk} 21:54, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

**Comment** - We could make any results of 0% appear as 0-1% or <1% to make clear there is in fact a chance, but that chance is below 1%. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 09:23, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

**Question** - Do we know if charm droppers *always* drop every charm? i.e are there cases where something that drops charms does not drop a given colour? --* Henneyj* 15:07, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

- We can make 0-1% or <1% appear if at least once a charm is dropped, and if the data shows exactly 0 drops of that charm, it is still 0%. That would solve this issue too. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 16:52, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
- If we don't know the answer to that question we cannot simply say something with one logged charm (or any relatively low number) definitely does drop that charm. Confidence intervals are used because we cannot say that 100% of the data is accurate. --
14:39, October 23, 2011 (UTC)**Henneyj**

- If we don't know the answer to that question we cannot simply say something with one logged charm (or any relatively low number) definitely does drop that charm. Confidence intervals are used because we cannot say that 100% of the data is accurate. --

**Comment** - Nothing needs to be done other than educate you on what "probability" and "percentages" means. (; They are percentages based off the total number of drops people submit, it doesn't mean you will absolutely get 0 blue charms. You just have a near 0% chance of getting them. If something needs to be changed, idk how we could easily accomplish that. If it's possible to make <1% as Joey suggested, I think that'd be best. 18:17, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

**Comment** - Right below every charm log it says it's based on some 90% confidence interval. It means near 0%, but if people can't understand that then I dunno. What are you going to do with cases that have a 0.6% rate but round up to display 1%? My suggestion would be to display ~0% for drop rates (0%,0.5%). Everything between those 2 numbers but not including 0.5% or 0%. **Lil cloud 9** ^{Talk} 10:00, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

**Alternate Proposal** - instead of trying to code in silly aproximations or less than points which may be very hard if not impossible to do with the given system, why not just take it out to the 1/10th of a percent point? This might actually be much easier than the original proposal and if someone wants to complain that there might be a chance in something droping with less than a 0.1% rate I would remind them that 0.1% is a 1/1000 chance, which for charms means they effectively don't drop it. **Darrik Ash**^{HS} _{AL} 16:57, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

- Actually this is a great idea. Support for this! 1 more significant digit would be a lot easier to implement than all this shenanigan.
**Lil cloud 9**^{Talk}01:08, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

**Comment** - I checked this a bit, and if the percentage is 0.4 - 0.6%, it shows 0–1%. If it is below 40%, you could actually say it is very close to 0%. If you get 4 charms in 1000 kills (1 in every 250 kills), you could technically say there is no chance of getting a charm from it. If you want, we could indeed round the numbers to one decimal number. I do also support that. There is one problem with that though, if we do that, charm logs with few kills show approximated percentages (example: 100 kills 12 charms shows
8–18%
). We should still round those to round numbers. Only the numbers that show one percent difference between the low and the high (like 10,000 kills and 150 charms:
1–2%
) should become "1.5%" instead of 1–2%. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 13:29, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

**Support Darrik Ash's idea** It would work the best, and would completely deal with the issue in a suitably easy manner** King**^{ TALK}Wer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 02:45, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

**Notice of intent** - This thread will be closed as "no consensus" by the end of the week unless Darrik Ash's idea receives more discussion. **2****2****2** ^{talk} 10:30, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

**Support Darrik's idea** - Best and simplest solution in my opinion. ^{Talk} **Newbie856** ^{ edit count }**Nomad guide** 22:05, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

**Support Darrik** - Per the above. --Touhou FTW 02:07, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

**Support Darrik's idea** - Because we state our confidence range, I think it's unnecessary to make 0% become <1% or anything, but Darrik's idea makes for more accurate numbers, and in the case of something being less than 1%, a 0.1% drop rate would mean 1/1000, and I'm not sure if we have any charms that have such a low drop rate. It seems like the most accurate and best fitting solution. Hofmic Talk 06:42, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

**Support Darrik's idea** - How can being more accurate be a bad idea? **Sentra246** 08:45, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

**Support ~0%** - Makes sense and will be a quick and easy change. Ameobea10^{Talk • Contribs • #} 23:54, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

**Support any idea** - Just change it, as it is confusing/false right now. But I would oppose changing every percentage to a decimal. So instead of 46%, there might put 45.5% or something. Don't do that; just the 0%. Chicken7 ^{ >talk} 10:03, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

**Closed** - Charm logs will have their data taken to 1 decimal place. **2****2****2** ^{talk} 10:30, November 18, 2011 (UTC)