Discussion Forums - Questions about SwapaCD

if I'm competing with someone who only has 10 items in their wishlist, then on average, they will outrank me 99% of the time.  (Only 1% of my CDs can be in the 1-10 range, but 100% of theirs are.)  Is this correct? 

I wouldn't look at it that way.

If you both have the same items in your top 10s, then additional items are just gravy for you. The other person doesn't even have a chance at those.

If you have different items in your top 10, that's your choice.

It's been my observation that the position is "not" continuously updated/calculated, and this would explain some of the anomolies people are claiming.

If I have a CD ranked at #1 (I'm 1 of 10) and move it to #10, I will get a "new" estimated position for two weeks from now.

But, in the same situation, if instead of moving the CD to #10, I put 9 CD's in front of it, I will NOT get a new estimated position until the over night update.   Basically, you have to actually "touch" a CD listing to get a new calculated position & estimate. 

Another example is - if you move a CD from rank #100 to rank #1, it does not reestimate the 2 week position of all 99 CD's in bewteen - only the one you actually moved.

of course that is correct, how else would you want it? You cannot have 100 or even 20 in your Top-10!

But think of it this way: your Top-10 score exactly the same amount of points as the hypothetical micro-user and then, compared to that other user, you get bonus points accumulating on 990 other CDs. So when the micro-lister goes to list his next set of 10, your 990 all have a head start on all of his new adds; his Top 10 will never catch up in points to your Top 10.

capybara,

do you seriously believe that NooBs with small wish lists have huge advantages or are you trolling us? 

Your Top 10 earn the same exact points (6,687) as everyone else's Top 10. Would it seem more fair to you if you had 10, 20, or even 100 CDs accumulating as if they were in the #1 spot? That's ridiculous, right?

In that regard you are level with the small-Wishlister. But then on top of that, your are earning another 39,000-40,000 points on your other 990 CDs that the the guy with only 10 wishes isn't earning. So when he goes to list additional items, you have gained a massive number of points unavailable to the other guy. How you allocate those points are up to you. But if anything, you are the one who will outrank the next guy 99% of the time.

Re: Someone may also go on vacation and put their entire account on hold.  That will pull them from being visible, but put them back when they un-hold the account

Members who are on vacation hold will be visible on the graph, but they do not gain points while they are on vacation.  Vacation members are signified by a yellow dot (your place in the graph is a red dot).

Re: You finally clarified the mystery of why I have been number one on the wishlist since one year and simply don't get the CD.  It is hard to believe that no one ever posts Esparanza Spalding.  If what you say is true, I will never get the CD, because there are always newer members. How unfair.

New members don't get any more benefit than older members as Melanie pointed out.  But I do believe that "no one ever posts Esparanza Spalding"  CDs.  Most of the new postings you see here are for Top 40 - Popular music.  The kind of music still sold at brick & mortar stores (Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart).  I'm pretty sure you won't find a single Esparanza Spalding CD at Wal-Mart.  Even Best Buys selection is a fraction of what it used to be.

Some CDs are no longer pressed.  They are just digital downloads or MOD (manufactured on demand) CD-R's by Amazon.

Old thread, interesting read how people viewed the wl a few years ago. 

Vacation and points has never been clear to me.  Some say you earn points on titles set to auto-request and you DO NOT earn points on 48hr offer.  I don't know how be sure either way. 

I think that's part of the point--to allow new folks to move up on the CDs they want the most, and to let non-new people also pick the ones they really want more and let the rest just settle out when they come up.

So you first 10 woudl be on even footing with their first 10.  Your last 10 would not be. You'd have credit for long time in, but you don't rank them very high. I don't htink it matters to get all 1000 in exact order. I'd say the first 10 then the next hundred then maybe by hundreds.  Don't know the detailed math but I doubt 867 is much different than 1000.

On PBS they implemented a limit on the # of items on the WL to tackle the similar problem. Two different solutions, both of which leave you near the front for the CDs you want a fair amount, but keep you from taking up thousands of front running WL spots from other people.