Points conflict

[gettingthere]

In my case, the points difference is a lot more than 50%. And the wazers' icons will probably keep their lower point amounts even if using Waze v.3 clients, unless the client would be capable of syncing them with the server (or constantly complaining about being hungry for candies )

The info that you get when you click on another Wazer's icon is fed from the server, not the Waze application running on the other Wazer's smartphone. Only the server points matter. Ignore the client points on the points ticker...

[foxitrot]

In my case, the points difference is a lot more than 50%.

The info that you get when you click on another Wazer's icon is fed from the server, not the Waze application running on the other Wazer's smartphone.

Sure enough, of course.

Only the server points matter. Ignore the client points on the points ticker...

The points ticker is not important for me at all. I'm just trying to point out that the (other wazers') points tickers interestingly do match their icon points, and the icons' points values do differ from Dashboard/Scoreboard.

According to your words, all except the client's point ticker should be server points Then why the difference?

[AlanOfTheBerg]

According to your words, all except the client's point ticker should be server points Then why the difference?

I've never understood the "official" explanation ever myself. With all the other data hitting the client, receiving the current points total is easy. Why isn't it already done so that everything is consistent?

Maybe the client is receiving points data from a different calculation of points than the website. Different code modules... different code... different output.

[foxitrot]

Why isn't it already done so that everything is consistent? [...] Different code modules... different code... different output.

That's what I also fear regarding Cartouche and Papyrus: they both give a different view on "reality" (= database) and do not manipulate it equivalently. Although anyone should just assume them be just different tools to reach the same goal. Just as the points.

[dmcconachie]

Presumably because if there is a hiccup in data then caching your own score means you can always see your own score. With that same hiccup in data you won't see any other wazers anyway so their points can just be server derived!

[foxitrot]

Another "conspiracy theory"

For a couple of weeks long, with each and every points status update, I was trying to understand the true relations between the points/updates/kilometers/numbers/whatever table in my Dashboard, with help of the announced table, which describes the amount of points a wazer is rewarded for his/her activity. But the points never summed up to my points total, there was always a huge difference (some 26% of the points total) Anyone else tried already to check? Make a small spreadsheet table, copy the lines from Dashboard table, add a few multiplications and sum up the results. Does it match the points total?

I think I've already got a grasp on it. The only way I could let it sum up to "something meaningful" was to:
- change the Map updates' factor from 1.5 to 1.6,
- add (some integer)*750 points (I assume for some particular number of swallowed editing candies),
- all all points for "Your first ...." candies

This way the final differences between the point sums cross the table updates were usually inside the +-1.0 point, mostly some fractional value, and the difference between my calculations and the points total is around 0.01% of the points total. Way better than some 26%

I'd like to ask some volunteers to check these calculations with their Dashboard table...

[dmcconachie]

Yeah I tried that shortly after joining then I found http://bit.ly/WazePoints

[foxitrot]

Yeah I tried that shortly after joining then I found http://bit.ly/WazePoints

Yes, I'm talking about exactly this table.
I was just thinking about the points before. After getting aware about the table, I've started to regularly multiply it with my Dashboard figures. And it never matched...

I admit that "adding street names" is an unknown variable, but I suspect I do not add that much street names to make my calculation match the results (and yes, I've tried to guess some sane numbers of added street names too).