Forum:Drop logs for monster and item pages

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Drop logs for monster and item pages
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 23 December 2010 by Gaz Lloyd.

Before commenting, please read the whole proposal.

There is actually one big thing i miss on this wiki (excluding things related to Oasis) and that is drop logs. We do have charm logs, but not drop logs. This will be an enormous project, to keep it clean for the first part where we have no data to check if submissions are reliable, which we do have for charm logs. Still, when this has grown bigger, we will have enormously precise detail of the drop rates of monsters. It will use the same system the charm logs use now: a submission page, from which a bot checks if it is good and changes it on the Drops: page(of course this means we rename the Charm: namespace to Drops:). It will have some problems probably in the beginning, but we might transfer the current logs and set, for example, common as 60% chance, uncommon 30% chance, rare 10% chance and very rare 2% chance as a beginning(maybe different amounts, i am just suggesting the idea of it)

100% drops will not be added, because it is 100% already and we don't need any research about that.

This drop thing will also be used for hunter creatures that have chances to drop items instead of a 100% drop only(like tatty or good fur, jadinkos, etc.)

I think the charm submissions should still be seperate though, because they are always dropped together with something else, and there should be something for extra drops, which are dropped aside of standard drops.

How would it work?

I made a couple of pages for this, which is [[w:c:joeytje50:Category:Drops_stuff|here, on my wiki]]. The [[w:c:joeytje50:Mudskipz|Mudskipz]] and [[w:c:joeytje50:Cabbage|Cabbage]] page there are the final pages, with a percentage and "1 in x kills" thing. The cabbage page also has to do with this, as that is the second part of my proposal:

Adding drop logs to item pages

I suggest we add such drop logs to the item pages too, so you can see what monster drops the item, and some other useful things. This is also to add more detail to articles on this wiki.

Additional css required for an additional feature

If you hover over the "1 in 7 kills" on the [[w:c:joeytje50:Mudskipz|Mudskipz]] and [[w:c:joeytje50:Cabbage|Cabbage]] pages, you will see 2 decimal numbers are added, but for that we need to add the following to the css:

.sighidden { display: none !important;}
.sigexpand:hover .sighidden { display: inline !important;}

The reason this should not be showed default is because it looks a bit strange when you get an item one in 7.75 kills, but it is actually to be actually able to see it. As collapsible tables take up about 100x as much space as this, i think this method is best.

It is used like this

<span class="sigexpand">always shows<span class="sighidden">only shows when hovering above "always shows"</span></span>
Suggestions for better names

Maybe you don't like the names "sigexpand" and "sighidden" so if you got better suggestions, place them here please

  • showntext and hiddentext
  • shown and hidden
  • shown(text) and expand(text)
Summary of proposal

In short i am proposing the following:

Change Charm: namespace to Drops: namespace, which is then used
Use the templates i made on my wiki: have it say the percentage and the 1 in x kills thing
Adding a drops log to item pages
Add the code to the css to allow the hover-over text for this template

If you got a good idea for what should be changed too(should be about the same too) please comment that in this thread.

There is a list of compromises at #Compromises.

Discussion

Support evrything - As nominator JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:27, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Maybe i might react late on this, because i'm on a kind of holiday for a day or 2. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:27, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Drop logs are inherently flawed in a volunteer-based response system. I don't care about the logistics if the idea doesn't work. The problem is that people are much more inclined to report their kills if they get a good drop. Let's use the KBD as an example. If you kill it twice and get the KBD heads, are you more likely to report the kills than if you killed him fifty times and got nothing good? Certainly. Therefore, any drop log will overestimate the drop rate of rare kills. This is exacerbated on monsters killed less frequently, as one outlier report is enough to completely skew the drop statistics.

Having a bot to check the submissions is no good if we are missing most of the population that kills the monster. If 1000 people with 250 KBD kills each got nothing good and do not report their kills, while the 3 people with 20 KBD kills each and a visage drop do report it, then the bot isn't going to catch that. It's data. It's just going to bias the entire drop log database.

The only way to rectify that is to have random data gathering with a properly designed observational study, but that is not feasible given our limited resources and the enormous manpower that would require. Therefore, I oppose adding the drop logs altogether. --LiquidTalk 22:45, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain your oppose here and your support at almost the same, Forum:Jadinko Drop Rate Submissions? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 01:16, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
I support things like charm/seed logs because their mechanisms are limited enough to properly manage. There are a small finite number of options (four for charms, I'm not sure how many seeds there are for Jadinkos). That means that we can just ask people to not update the logs unless they have at least a certain threshold of kills. Furthermore, none of the charms are rare enough and valuable enough such that one charm drop is enough to spur a significant number of people to update the log. Though I'm not pleased with it, I think it's a reasonable means of operating the log.
The item drop logs, though, are much trickier. There are many more possibilities, so it's harder to track. Furthermore, the items that have a much larger range in terms of rarity and value. So, while someone that gets a blue charm from a black dragon may not necessarily want to update the drop log, someone that gets a draconic visage certainly will be. The differences between items and charms/seeds is just too great for drop logs for items to be plausible. --LiquidTalk 01:52, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
We could set a minimum of killed monsters maybe? just like the 25 minimum for charm logs, we could set a minimum of 50 or 100 for drops logs. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:01, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
That is possible, though this is still an issue because of the intense rarity of some of the items. It's much smaller an issue with charms because a charm drop is fairly common from the monsters that do drop charms. Like I said, the huge mountain of issues associated with keeping statistics on drop rates is so big that it's nearly impossible. Therefore, I believe that the easiest course of action is just to maintain the uncommon, common, rare, etc ratings that we already have. --LiquidTalk 16:23, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
Compromise: We keep the current system, until we have over 1000(or another amount) of entries and then use that with the system i used on my wiki. Is that ok with you? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:34, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this has been addressed, but how would even verify that kind of data. Someone could very easily make up some data for 1000 kills. Unverifiable data is no better than no data. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 23:25, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
That is dealt with at the comment and compromise discussion below: a team of checker people. Real people are not tricked that easily so this makes it a lot less likely fake entries are accepted. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:59, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as-is - Joey, your compromise is overlooking the biggest issue that Liquidhelm has, and that I have. Think about it this way. If you don't want to update charm logs, getting a few more blue charms than you expected is not going to suddenly make you want to update them. This ensures that only people who want to update them for the sole purpose of updating them will do so. This makes for very consistent, homogeneous data. On the other hand, if you don't plan on updating monster drop logs, getting a super-rare drop is likely to make you want to do it, whether its because you want to brag, or because you think it is important to log rare drops. Therefore, getting a rare drop makes a user more likely to update the logs. This means that rare drops will be shown much more common than they actually are. The data will not be consistent, nor will it be useful. To be frank, I would love to see this system implemented. It would be probably the most useful part of the website. But the statistical skewing of the rarer drops would make it very inaccurate. The only thing I could think to do to make it work is to forbid everyone from updating it. Only allow a group of researchers to do it, who understand why they should report every trip and not just the good ones. This would eliminate any bias in the data and make it more useful. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:42, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

What i think what could also work then is that submissions are not checked by bots, but by people in a certain project. If this project is big enough, the entries are checked quick enough to handle them all. Because you said "It would be probably the most useful part of the website" i hope you also think that a bit more work doesn't mean it should not be done. i do agree with you that people will more likely add rare drops than regular drops, but with regular users checking it, i think it is a lot more reliable. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:02, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
And this is where I come in, I have been considering for multiple weeks of making a project that will record rates of drops with 5000 kills. I can make a formal proposal on the yew grove if anyone else is fine with me doing so. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 15:45, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Why make a new thread? If you want to suggest a change to my proposal, feel free to suggest it, and then we can discuss it here. No need for 3 forums(1, this thread and your thread) about somewhat the same. I started a seperate thread because this was such a large proposal which needed a clear description imo, which is not very good to do it halfway a thread. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:54, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Also, I strong oppose the css text hiding. It adds nothing to the table. All we need is 1/x, where x is rounded to the nearest whole number. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:25, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Why? If we only need that information, it is only for people who want a more detailed amount. For example, when it is one in 7,50 you will see one in 8. For people who want more detailed info they hover over and see one in 7.50 which is imo better because iHeartdetail. And the fact you don't talk about the other things like a team that checks entries, does that mean you don't have anything against it? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:54, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
I'm against teams checking the data. I think the data should only come from teams. That's not to say that they would all agree to one day go out and collect data. They could collect it as they went about their daily business on RS. The point of having teams do it is teams would know to update after every trip to the monsters, whereas allowing every editor to update would invite players who only update when they have a good run, thus skewing the results. And who cares if they see 1/8 instead of 1/7.5? If they want an exact measurement they would look to the percentage column and see 7.5691049212341%. The fractional column is to provide a quick, at-a-glace method of displaying the drop rate in a method that people can easily understand. What fraction is .0000342%? I have no idea and neither will anyone else. That's why we need a fractional display as well. However adding decimals to the display muddies it up and makes it more confusing without adding anything. Even more so when you add the hidden/showing text. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:47, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
What is wrong with teams checking if the submissions are reliable? If there is the slightest of suspicion it is fake, they can reject it. That will make the amounts of submissions a lot bigger, so more reliable. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:55, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Because if teams just check the edits, then what are they checking it against? If the data was wrong to begin with (because of statistical skewing outlined above) then the team will have no reason to distrust other statistically skewed data. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 21:12, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Well, they could compare it with the current "common, uncommon, rare, very rare" things, but ok, i can see it is not that clear enough to check it with. So basically you think the team(let's call team project from now on; it is probably gonna be one) should set up a beginning, and after for example 1000 kills by project members, other people can submit their logs and the members will only have to check it. Is that ok? Oh and maybe we could ask people to give links to drop logs, as I heard there were already drop logs made, but they were moved to userspace because of a policy (like my drop log for imps) and then we have more data(of course, only if the drop log creator can be trusted per what you said) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:32, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Well that still won't solve the problem of rare drops being over-reported after we open the logs to anonymous contribution. We still need researchers who are guaranteed to report trips whether they are good or not, and as long as anyone can add to the logs, we can't rely on that consistently happening. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:12, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
i know there will be a lot of "amg i g0t da k3wl it3m! i needa r3port it!" but that is what the project is for. they will check if it is an "amg i pwnz" submission, or a reliable submission. Therefore, there will still be the Charm namespace, renamed to drops namespace, and only rb+ can edit it. i will explain what i think what's good to do when we got drops submissions checkers:
make something like the YG, with all monster/drops pages of monsters with more than 1000 kills logged by project members in it. Then the members of the project get a hilite on that page, and if for example User:Example submits a drop log of a man. In the list his name appears as blue, because he doesn't have a hilite. Then User:User, a member of the project, sees the unhilited username and knows there is a new submission. he checks the submission, and if it is a good submission, he adds it to the current amount. Then you see his name with a hilite, so it is easy to see the entries on the page are all entered to the drops:monster page(in drops namespace, which is protected for people without rb+, like charm namespace now). This way, only reliable submissions are accepted, which prevents vandalism on the logs. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:57, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
And how do you propose that we differentiate "i got a cool item" reports from reports of people who will report every kill? By turning away all reports that contain a rare item? No, I don't think so. And restricting people who can edit to rb+ is out of the question as rb has nothing to do with vandalism. Rb is not a good benchmark of people who can and cannot add to logs. And while the charm namespace may be protected, anonymous users are still able to contribute via a series of templates. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 16:44, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
I think it is not very hard to see the difference between "i got da k3wl it3m" submissions and other submissions. First there is the contributions list. If the user submitted drop logs more often, it makes it more likely he is an "every drops" submitter. Also the checkers will have to be good at seeing if it is a reliable submission or not. And "anonymous users are still able to contribute via a series of templates." they will be able to contribute to the logs as much as they can contribute to charm logs now. But here, it is not a bot who progresses the entries, but project members. So there is actually no difference between the current rb+ protected charm logs, and the proposed rb+ protected drop logs. The problem is that if we open the drop logs to evryone, there will be a lot of vandalism again, which we don't want(AGF what you want, i am just saying it happened too often before which makes it very likely it will happen as much in the future.) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:55, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - Check my above comment RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 15:45, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This is a continuation of my oppose on the other thread. There was a reason why I opposed any kind of renaming of the charm namespace to anything else because you are not going to be able to get the same kind of consistent data and verifiable data with charms. The reason it is so easy with the charms is that almost all monsters are able to drop them and there are only 4 options to keep track of. This proposal is flawed as the reasons brought up above. If you look back on the previous threads, the current drop system is fine the way it is. Many people strongly believed that there should only be a few options: Common, Uncommon, Rare, and Very rare (along with always for 100%s) because we would not be able to develop that precise of data. If someone was really that ambitious to go find out the nitty gritty details of drops with ridiculous amounts of kills, I'd suggest putting it in the discussion of that particular page. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 23:22, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

"the current drop system is fine the way it is" but it is not granular. We want things to be as granular as possible, which is currently only the case for charms. With the compromise made above, which is letting a team(project) with trusted people make drop logs of the monsters they kill. "I'd suggest putting it in the discussion of that particular page." as if anyone ever visits talk pages. Nobody does, and especially not for more information. Drop logs on talk pages is really the most pointless thing ever imo, as it is totally wasted time. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:32, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
You don't need to be referencing policies with every comment you make that don't even relate that what I am discussing. I bet you don't even know what granular means... Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 05:32, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
"You don't need to be referencing policies with every comment you make" If i don't refer to policies but just say something, it will look like i just made that up. with references, arguments are stronger.
"... that don't even relate that what I am discussing" Granularity does have to do with this. The current policy doesn't describe things about drop logs, but it makes the detail better, which is what granularity means. More detail on evrything.
"I bet you don't even know what granular means" i bet you don't, as high granularity means that the detail of the information is very high. So granularity is the level of detail for the information.
"You don't need to be referencing policies with every comment you make that don't even relate that what I am discussing." What does AGF, AEAE or UTP even have to do with this? not even the slightest, so please don't refer to policies that "don't even relate that what I am discussing" like you said above. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:57, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
You completely missed lil's point on your 4th response, and I agree you don't need to reference to policies with every comment you make, expecially since consensus overrides policies. Also, I agree that granularity has nothing to do with this. bad_fetustalk 17:09, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
I refer to policies to make it clearer what i am talking about. About "granularity has nothing to do with this." no indeed, the RS:G policy doesn't say anything about this. But use common sense. If you search for "define granularity" there is the 3rd result(which i find the clearest) which says "Level of detail (fineness) considered in a model or decision making process. Greater the granularity, deeper the level of detail (fineness of data)." which makes it quite clear this is actually ONLY about granularity. Just not RS:Granularity. "consensus overrides policies" Ye, i know. But does that mean you shouldn't refer to current policies? Should policies be ignored in discussions because consensus overrides it anyway? Not imo. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:24, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
Granularity is about page for certain things, not drop logs. You can't just look at the name of the policy and think you know what it means. Anyway, you use UCS as a reason that your proposals should pass. You should stop that because oftentimes your proposals are not exactly commonsense. ʞooɔ 21:03, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
If you can't look at policy names to know what it actually also means, please explain why about EVRYONE said so in Forum:UCS. Also, i am not using UCS as a reason my proposal(s) pass. I am using it here in the exact same way as the people in Forum:UCS: i am using it to tell that it makes sense that if we have a policy about most detailed info about evrything, we do want the most detail evrywhere. It is quite strange to say we want granularity on all pages, but not aout anything else. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:26, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose all parts - Unnecessary, overly bureaucratic and rather useless. ʞooɔ 07:34, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Charm logs are very different to your proposal, as there is only 4 different kinds of charm, but there are countless different drops, each of different rarity. It's also rather pointless, seeing as charm drops rely on percentages to work out how common they are, while regular drops will generally be completely different. Say you kill 10 men. Of the 10 men, 5 drop gold charms, 2 drop blues and the last 3 don't drop a charm. On the other hand, each one could have a different "main" drop - you could get a guam, a clue, a pile of coins, a marrentill...basically, drops are too varied to work out percentages from a log. Real Crazy 17:58, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is too varied to work out percentages from a log. All you need is a high kill count. Statistics don't suddenly change when you go from 4 possible drops to 20 possible drops. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:09, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
...You just need 5 times more kills for the same amount of accuracy. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:26, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you'd need more than 5 times more kills. You'd quite possibly need thousands of kills for some drops - I've had about 5 or 6 Cave Horror assignments of ~130-170 kills each, and NOT ONCE have I seen any of the following: Shield half, torstol seed, dragon spear, long bone, black mask, curved bone, effigy, dwarf weed seed. So, if we put this in the drop logs, that's be a count of zero for all those drops, with a killcount of somewhere around 1000. So then the percentages would become 0% for 8 different drops, and coins or low-level seeds would stand at about 35% each. Another player might do the same amount of kills and get a black mask. When you add that to the log, that makes the likelihood of a black mask drop to be 0.005%, but in reality, that's nowhere near accurate. We'd be misinforming people with these logs, and that's something we NEVER do. And that's not to mention, they'll be frequent targets for vandals and jokers. We've had a few discussions about charm logs being nightmares to keep clean...if this passes, we get double the amount of logs to maintain, and countless users spending valuable time checking the edits to them. Real Crazy 13:38, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
You'd need millions of drops before having a reliable log on monsters such as black dragons, which drop vissies which are extremely rare. This just won't work. bad_fetustalk 14:08, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
We are not misinforming our visitors if we make the percentage being calculated the same as for charm logs with low amounts of submissions: let it say 5-15% chance. That is no misinforming, and still it is more accurate than "rare" as "rare" is 10-25% or something. Atleast it is a much wider range. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:28, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 18:36, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Compromises

Here are some compromises made through the above discussion.

  • There will be a team/project that will make a start for drop logs. They will make a start of a certain amount(maybe 1000) of kills, and then open submissions. Then they will check the submissions, and if they are reliable, enter the submissions to the drops log. This will work like charm submissions: a drops log on the special namespace page, and the submissions page as a subpage of the monster.
  • The project members will get a hilite(on the project page only, not anywhere else) which makes it easier to see if the edit was to process the submissions or to submit one. The interface will be like the Yew Grove page.
  • Only after a certain amount of kills, the "common-uncommon-rare-very rare" system(which will still be used on all pages until the certain amount is reached) is replaced with the drop log percentages.
  • The drop log percentages will not be an exact number but an approach, with the same system as charm logs, which, for example, shows 5-15% when a low amount of kills are submitted, and 8-12% when a higher amount of kills are submitted.

JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:28, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Added later
  • Have very rare drops, like visages, seperated from the rest, so problems like unrealisticly high percentages are excluded.


Strong Oppose - As I mentioned before, it still won't work with extremely rare drops such as vissies. If someone adds a vissy drop when logging, you can't remove that as invalid since it is possible, which means what Helm said will happen with those drops. bad_fetustalk 17:35, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

(inserted)"you can't remove that as invalid since it is possible" not as invalid, but because it is such a rare drop, you will just not add it because it makes the log less reliable. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:34, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
You bring up a good point that we may need an unrealistically large amount of kills to get a reliable log about, say, visage drops. But I believe that could be worked around by separating extremely rare drops from the normal drops. For instance, anything where there are from 0 to 2 drops after several thousand kills could be designated as a rare drop, and instead of providing a percentage which is bound to be inaccurate, we could simply state that it is very rare and has a drop rate lower than one in one thousand. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:03, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
That is actually a good idea... That prevents any problems with too high amount of rare drops, and then we don't need to log that many kills before we have accurate data. I added it to the compromise list. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:34, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - What you don't seem to understand is that the drop rates that people will care about are the rare ones. No one will care one bit about how often goblins drop iron dagger. No one at all will care to find out. The only drop rates people look for are the rare ones. Take a look at Talk:Draconic visage if you don't believe me. If we're actually going to worry about how often the common, useless drops are, but we're going to hold off on the rare ones, that is a complete and utter waste of time. ʞooɔ 20:05, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting about things like clue scrolls, big/curved bones, and other drops that aren't too rare to get a good sample, but that people still care about. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:15, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, but the vast majority of items people don't care about. I'd be okay with it if we focused on certain items like the rares and the ones you mentioned, but for all intents and purposes "Rare" and "Common" suffice for everything else. My other problem with this is that with charm logs, there are only four possible outcomes (five if you count no charm). With drop logs, in most cases there are upwards of 20, 30, even 60. People are not going to take the time to log everything, and they certainly won't get enough info to be accurate to any degree. If we only did it for certain items, that would be helpful but it would also cause the problems of people adding to the log when they get one. ʞooɔ 20:34, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting, I hadn't really considered logging just clue scrolls/effigies/whatever else is especially notable yet not super rare. I certainly agree that no one gives a crap how often a lesser demon drops a gold bar, but I would like it if there were a system of logging important drops. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 21:48, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
The whole "OMG I got a rare drop I should log it" thing will come back, though. If we could find a way to make sure users don't "cheat" on the drop logs, it would be nice to log the important things. ʞooɔ 21:57, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
The other thing to consider is how do we define what's important? I'm sure everyone will agree that clue scrolls are, but what if someone argues that a steel hatchet is? As for your concern, I don't think anyone will get so excited about getting a clue scroll that they suddenly feel compelled to add to a log they've never added to before. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:15, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I will bring up the problem I stated earlier: drops are too varied to get a reasonable log with anything under about 1000 kills. If we set that as a minimum requirement, we're going to need a VERY dedicated team of users willing to repeatedly kill low-levelled monsters, high-levelled bosses, and "nuisance" monsters like lesser and greater demons. Real Crazy 09:08, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Errr.... Yes... And what is the problem with that? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:46, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
We have 1,063 monsters on the wiki. Multiply that by 1000+ kills, and we're talking about over a million kills to get even somewhat accurate data, and that doesn't even include rares. It's just way too big of a project to ever get anywhere close to completing. ʞooɔ 20:04, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
I want to see that. I think that if evryone helps a bit, we will get there. I already set up the project, here, so evryone who wants to join is free to make his subpage and log. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:46, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
I don't even see a point to discussing this anymore if you are just going to ignore everybody's comments and do it anyways. Probably will start another topic of some kind in the future. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 12:00, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
I started the project to make a start already. It is seperate from the runescape wiki actually, because none of the data will yet be applied to the mainspace. It is just for preparing to adding it to the mainspace in the future. So discussing adding the data here is still useful. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:35, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Completely misses the point of not being bureaucratic and still unnecessary. Again, if you really want to look into the specifics for a monster- be bold, do the research, and post it somewhere. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 20:45, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Like everyone else said, this completely misses the point of the previous opposition. --LiquidTalk 02:38, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Changed "Granularity" to "detail" in the proposal. cook seemed to hate it. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:54, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

(2)

Comment - Thought I would just point out the sheer size of this project. Let's say on average you would need about 2500 kills to get data accurate enough to put on mainspace. Let's also say that there are about 700 monsters with complicated drops. Let's also say it takes about 15 seconds to kill a monster on average. We are looking at over 7000 hours of work. I don't think the supporters are realizing just how huge this is. Even if people spent four hours a day on this, it would take five years. And that's not even including the rare drops (imagine how many corp kills you would need to get an accurate assessment of its drops.) The vast majority of this project would be useless, and the only useful parts are the ones that take forever. ʞooɔ 14:27, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

It will take very long. But if you do it the good way, it doesn't cost more time than normal monster killing. Therefore, it creates a win-win situation. and not a vast majority of the project will be useless. You are living too much in the present. Look a bit to the future, and there we will be happy we had the drop logs project started earlier, because then we have the good data. I say that if you are killing monsters anyway, and it doesn't cost any time to log it(which is true when you do it the good way), why not make the wiki better for the future? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:29, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Cook on this one. The only drops people are interested in are the rare ones, especially from boss monsters. If people wanted to know the drop rate of, say, the elysian sigil from the corporeal beast, do you realize just how many kills that will need to be to get an accurate drop rate? You're talking about at least 100,000 Corporeal Beast kills. That will take forever. And that's just one monster (albeit this one takes much longer to kill than most other monsters).
We're considering the future. However, consider the length of the future. If we put this data up, it will not be meaningful until at least 2030 or something. By that time, who knows if Jagex or RuneScape or the wiki will still be around? Besides, putting bad data up on the pages is not exactly desirable, is it? --LiquidTalk 15:52, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
There are enough people who want to know what the rates are for slayer monsters. And as people will be logging slayer monsters quite often, we will get accurate data for those quite quickly. Then we can add those already, while we will still go on working on the other, harder monsters like bosses. Then we atleast have a part, and people are very likely going to appreciate it. It is just that we must set a minimum amount of kills before it can be added to the mainspace. I was thinking about 2500 kills for accurate data. This will then continue to rise and then the data will keep getting preciser. I don't see the problem in having logs for a couple of monsters only, as every little bit helps. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:35, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Although it will inevitably take a long time to get accurate drop logs with a large sample size for every monster article, having a detailed drop log which works on percentages and odds is better than using a classification system in which each classification covers a wide range of percentages/odds, and is therefore less accurate. Having x number of articles with a more detailed and accurate drop table is better than having no articles with a more detailed and accurate drop table, or inversely all articles with sometimes-inaccurate classifications for each item. Dragon 2h sword old.pngCallofduty4 Talk 03:55, December 20, 2010 (UTC)


This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Drop logs for monster and item pages. Request complete. The reason given was: Joey has started the project in his userspace

Real Crazy 11:25, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it will or won't be added, so that should still be discussed. Please don't close this yet. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:28, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Ok then, it won't be added now. I see that. But can't we set a minimum amount of kills needed for adding it? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:54, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

I suggest 5,000 kills for adding it, and when items are still not obtained, enter <0.02% (1 in >5,000). It is at least more informative than "extremely rare" JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:05, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
That makes no sense. It won't be added but you want to set parameters for when it will be added? In addition, it seems you just added this to make it so "discussion hadn't died" and no one would close the thread, according to what you wrote in IRC:
<Joeytje50> ok then i added a new point now and now discussion is not over
Does that sound like gaming the system to anyone? ʞooɔ 13:06, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
I actually didnt add a new point, but something earlier in the thread, which i made easier to see. You don't close threads with longer silence either, so i don't see the point of closing a discussion with 1 day of silence.
And i think "It won't be added but you want to set parameters for when it will be added?" is very right. I think that almost every opposer opposed because it takes too much time/work. What if the project wants to do the work? then that argument is off, so we can move to the next, which is what i do here. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:24, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
If you just wanted to make it easier to see, why did you say what you did in IRC? That sure makes it sound like you did it for the purpose of bumping the thread. And we should establish no guidelines if the entire project is wholly opposed. ʞooɔ 13:27, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
I said that because i wanted to stop you from closing the thread, because it seemed to me that if i would have waited another sec you would have closed it. And the project is opposed because it is too much work. If we are prepared to do the work, that argument is off so i move to the next argument, which is inaccuracy, and which is solved by setting a minimum, which i am asking for here. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:07, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Did you read any of Cook's maths? Even with people working 4 hours a day, this will take around 5 years to complete. It's not just "too much work", it's too long to spend on a piece of information which will be essentially unused. Real Crazy 15:48, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Did you read my question? What's wrong with adding it to, for example, slayer monster pages only? Then it doesn't take too long. And the other question i asked: what should be the minimum for adding it to the mainspace, if others are prepared to do "too much" work? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:22, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
There are 100 different Slayer assignments, not including the special challenges. Most of those 100 assignments include more than one kind of monster, and almost all of them have an alternative. Unless you only want to do it for the 70 or so things in :Category:Slayer Monsters, it's still an unreasonable amount of work.
That said, however, barely anyone will be interested in the logs for fever spiders, etc, as they are barely killed for any purpose other than Slayer. The logs people would look at are for bosses like the Corp, the KQ and all four GWD bosses. That's slightly more of a challenge than 1000 goblins, or even 1000 Abby specs, don't you think? Real Crazy 18:43, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Yep. And could you now tell me why not to add those things to some pages? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:05, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Because, as has been said several times now, nobody is interested in anything other than rare drops. It is pointless to show that Graardor dropped 23416 Coins, 8 times. They're interested in the drop rates for stuff like the BCP and the hilt. Just to get 1 drop of each, it will take ages. Then you will need to do it for the other bosses. Then for all the monsters killed for profitable drops. Then for all the Slayer assignments. Then all the alternative Slayer monsters. Then all the varieties of those alternatives. It can start with very few logs, but things will stop looking uniform, and the only way to prevent this is making logs for everything, which would take far too long. Real Crazy 11:05, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
Still it's no reason not to add it. And i think people DO care about the drop rates of i-don't-know-what from slayer monsters, for example, the drop rate of leaf-bladed swords from turoths/kurasks, or the rate of black masks/hexcrests etc... And now i'll start about "nobody cares" too: Nobody cares about uniformity. Nobody EVER complained about the fact {{DropsLine}} is not everywhere. Do Special:Randomincategory/Bestiary a couple of times, and you will definetely find a couple of monsters without {{DropsLine}}. Nobody EVER complained about that, so they apparently don't care about uniformity. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:52, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Per all above. You can make this your pet project and host it on your userpage. See this: User:Kodeman76/Drop List. However, do not think that you project will make it to the mainspace. 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 19:36, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Overwhelming opposition to the idea and implementation(s). Joey has started the project in his userspace, users are free to join that, and he can come back in 5+ years or so when he gets enough data to see if the community then wants it in mainspace. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:14, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

For those that are mathematically impaired, this means that this must wait until December 23, 2015. --LiquidTalk 23:36, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
Or so. he was talking about if there was enough data, not about an exact date. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:55, December 24, 2010 (UTC)