From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > GEbot
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 21 October 2010 by Psycho Robot.

Well after reading RuneScape:Bots, I'd like to request the bot flag for my bot (Will rename it because I had same name as another inactive bot :/).
The bot is to update the GE prices right after a GE update.

There's not kinda much to say :/
It uses the php wikipedia framework to get the page then edit it, the c# bot to find the GE price and call the php framework.
I ran it and then went to sleep (not good when you're not flagged), so yea it's been tested.
(I will make a Emergency shutdown)

Other uses I will run things as my crop bot, and future projects. --Farming cape (t).png Ikin Talk 19:40, October 20, 2010 (UTC)


There's already User:GEBot, User:SmackBot, and User:AmauriceBot... --Iiii I I I 15:06, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

And it would hurt to have the GEMW pages updated more frequently... how? ajr 15:19, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Changed to strong oppose, see below - We already have SmackBot and AmauriceBot updating GE pages (GEBot was inactive and had its bot flag revoked). We really only need one GE update bot. We have two to create a redundancy in the system to guard against bot malfunctions so that if one breaks, we still have the other to back it up. However, three bots is a bit too many, since the chances of both SmackBot and AmauriceBot (written by expert programmers) simultaneous failing is astronomical at best. --LiquidTalk 15:22, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

I will say again, how would it possibly hurt us to have the gemw pages updated more frequently? Both of those bots only update once a week. ajr 15:26, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
"It doesn't hurt" is NEVER a reason to perform an action (it is only a semi-valid reason when arguing against a change). --LiquidTalk 15:28, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
We are a wiki. Surely having the most up-to-date information is a good thing. You haven't yet given any good reason to not have it, other than we already have two bots doing it. Having another would significantly increase the accuracy of the data in our articles, and as such I support this. ajr 15:32, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
Can't we make one of the two existing bots do what Ikin wants her bot to do? --Iiii I I I 15:36, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
My reason is that it's highly unnecessary. How would it significantly increase the accuracy of the data in our articles? In case you haven't noticed, our categories that deal with the most recent price update has minimal articles in the 7 days category, and no articles in the 2-4 weeks or 29+days categories. Yes, because SmackBot and AmauriceBot are really THAT slow and because the price changes THAT much over 2 or 3 days. If you look at Amauricebot's userpage, it says that the bot runs every two to three days. Save for newly released items, which are sure to have many users updating the price manually, prices do NOT change that much in two or three days. --LiquidTalk 15:37, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
But she says she will update after every update. That's much more frequent, thus better. Right now, I never use the wiki to look how much something costs because it's rarely up to date. What's wrong with getting people to use the wiki for price checks too? bad_fetustalk 16:12, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
@IiiiIIIi, no, those bots only run once a week. @Liquid, by having an much more current price, our accuracy is increased. I've listed benefits, now can you please tell me why it would be a bad thing to have the pages updated more frequently. We have unlimited space. There is no limit on the number of bots we can have. Why is this even an issue for you? ajr 19:01, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - More frequent = win. bad_fetustalk 16:12, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - How can this hurt the wiki in anyway to have one extra bot and making the GE more accurate. As a side-note, does one need to keep their computer open for their bots to work? Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 16:33, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Frequency is a goof thing, and adding to our bot count for something as critical as the GEMW can't hurt any. As long as this thing is tested and has an emergency shut off put into it, I think that this will benefit us if done correctly. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 17:45, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Doesn't hurt. --Coolnesse 18:17, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - She took the effort to make a bot since it wasn't updating as frequent, and it works. However, I'd request that the name of GEbot be changed to something else to avoid confusion with GEBot. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 18:50, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - In case people haven't seen my reasoning about, frequency is a great thing. ajr 18:59, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - I suppose it can't hurt, but I don't really see it as that useful. If you've already got it written though, then I don't see why not. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 21:54, October 17, 2010 (UTC) 

Changed to oppose - Per her recent behaviour. Poor judgement and impulsiveness are not qualities that I want to see in a bot operator. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:16, October 21, 2010 (UTC) 

Support - Change the name and we are good to go. HaloTalk 22:50, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Strong Oppose - Per Cook. I would support a more established member who has history working with bots and with the community running it. HaloTalk 20:10, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support+proposal - Can you get a few people like Amurice and TLUL to look at the code just to make sure it's right, we don't want anything going wrong and i haven't seen how good you are with this sort of thing. Also i think we should have one bot start updating from the start of the list as soon as the ge is updated, and the other 2 just run throught the whole list every 1-2 days. If what you are saying your bot does it correct than i reckon it will be great. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:03, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Oppose - A bot flag is a very powerful thing and anyone who acts the way you have on this forum doesn't deserve the flag. We still need another gebot but the way you acted you won't be the bot operator we use for a long time. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:58, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - If you look at how many pages are 7 days old, you cannot be the best merchant. A majority of goods change prices every day, although only in ranges of +-2% or so.Rewlf2 05:11, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - More Bots = Faster updates = Better for merchants = More site views. And I support a suggestion to have the current bot owners to take a look at the code, just in case. Finally, I fine it disgraceful to have 7 day old GE prices in the GEMW, it is completely useless and cannot possibly serve it's purpose; who can merchant using out-dated prices? It's like trying to tell today's weather using last week's forecast. 222 talk 05:45, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to strong oppose - After seeing what occurred further below, on other pages and externally; I can no longer trust you with a bot. 222 talk 04:57, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You read the page :D! And faster updates mean better information. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:23, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Cook. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:07, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. Suppa chuppa Talk 02:26, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to oppose - Her recent conduct worries me. Suppa chuppa Talk 02:15, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Question I believe the reason the current bots did not update so often was because of some Jagex rule about how often/how much data could be read off their servers in a certain time frame. Sorry I cannot explain that better, it was a technical issue outside of my knowledge sphere. Do we know if that rule still exists, what is the maximum allowed rate, and will an update every time the GE updates not exceed that? Or am I totally off on everything I said and none of this makes any sense to anyone?--Degenret01 04:37, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Jagex don't want us to grab info from the GEDB to often because it slows there server. It is around once a day they want us to do it, but i believe that is a "recommendation" rather than a rule (not 100%sure about that though). Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:41, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - While I realize that we have a need for a new and improved GE bot, I don't think you should be the one to run it. Your immaturity is showing, and you've violated RS:BOTS by continuing to run your bot after several warnings. You are having problems with other users (especially Evil), and after the way you treated me in IRC, I have no reason to trust you whatsoever. I feel that even you do get your bot off the ground, your emotions may get the better of you and it could cause major problems for the wiki. ʞooɔ 19:44, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

You removed my oppose? That's bad. We don't delete discussions, even if you find my comment to be invalid. ʞooɔ 19:51, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
Keep me out of your proposal. My personal feelings have nothing to do with my opposition. ʞooɔ 19:55, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
In addition, you're really argumentative and confrontational, given that you called Stelercus a whiny kid after he opposed your bot flag. And you saying "Fuck Wikia" on your user page will not make you any friends. ʞooɔ 20:48, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Cook, including the part of the first sentence " realize that we have a need for a new and improved GE bot". This is my second time leaving this comment, as the first time I got an edit conflict from Ikin consisting of him removing Cook's comment above. I cannot trust a user who would do such a thing. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:50, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- Per Cook. As well, the removal of Cook's comment on the basis of "personal oppose" does not merit good faith. I would also venture to say that we may need a new bot, but not if your emotions and blindness occupy your judgment would we want to have controlling any bot account. Ryan PM 19:56, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Ikin's character was my biggest reservation for opposing all the way at the top of the page, but I didn't want to use that as the sole basis because I had only observed that in the IRC, which I believe should generally be kept separate from wiki affairs. She was the reason that I asked for op rights for Ajr and myself. Now, given her actions on the wiki, my oppose has become stronger. --LiquidTalk 22:09, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, but looking at your recent behavior, I can't really put my trust on you for running the bot. Best Shield EVERAnnaLove scarves! 02:04, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Really anything I would say would be a summary of what Cook has said. So with that in mind, Per Cook. BerserkHackr 02:18, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - No one who has behaved as you did can run a bot here. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:12, October 21, 2010 (UTC)