3 ms·
Good job! Could you add a timestamp and option to sort by it? (I know, feature creep!) ETA: I also find it interesting that the lowest score from those not usi
by bcl 17y ago
Good job! Could you add a timestamp and option to sort by it? (I know, feature creep!)
ETA: I also find it interesting that the lowest score from those not using the optional 5 random chars is currently 38. All the lower ones use random chars.
- jazzychad 17y agoThought about it, but the two systems I used to compile the data are showing different timestamps (almost like a timezone mismatch) so now it's too late to fix them. I do have the "latest 10 entries" as a compromise.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- JeremyChase 17y agoThere is a practical reason for this depending on your algorithm. In mine it was much faster to change the last 5 characters instead of changing the entire string. I saw about a 50% performance improvement by creating a fixed set of 12 words, and altering the last 5 characters. Then updating the 12 words when necessary.
- philfreo 17y agoRight now you're showing duplicate entries (the same entry of value 31 is showing from two people)
- jazzychad 17y agoThat's because somebody just copied and pasted somebody else's entry. The system is working as intended. I'm sure Engineyard will catch it in their judging (or so I hope).