So I got a video note from Rudy Ferretti regarding his confusion regarding the PSI and thought that it might be interesting to explore PSI a bit in discussion.
To be clear, the PSI system is working correctly and there are no known errors.
There are also no secrets about how it functions. In fact, what the entire system is and its calculation is described publicly here.
https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthre...ill-Index-(PSI)
For summary I have provided the track equation here:
TRACK PSI YIELD = (star rating * number of data records on track) / rank held
Any track that has not been rated gets a star rating on ONE (1) by default.
The track rating (1 - 5 Stars) - Every leaderboard on Twin Galaxies has a rating that reflects how the competitive community values it. The higher the rating the more intrinsically valuable holding rank on the track is.
The number of scores in the database for the track - A track with only 5 list scores is not as competitive as a track with 100 scores, therefore holding rank #1 on a track with 5 scores is less valuable than holding rank #1 on a track with 100 scores. This factors in the historic competitive level of a track and places higher value on achievement within a higher competitive landscape.
The rank position held by the member on the track itself - The higher the rank held, the greater the value to the PSI calculation.
So, a member PSI = SUM(ALL TRACK PSI YIELDS)
In a system as described above, the more you participate in it, the more PROVEN value you can accumulate.
So clearly, according to the math, tracks with little or no competition always yield much smaller amount of PSI than tracks with many competitors. Regardless of Star Rating.
Track ratings are a matter of verified user opinion and do factor in. Not all tracks are viewed as equally important by the community and that must be represented.
The single most important factor in a track's PSI yield is how many competitors there are on its leaderboard.
A competitor can get their (VERIFIED) friends and try to artificially downvote a track all they want, but all they will find is that over a protracted time-span it is impossible to artificially negatively influence the point yield of highly competed on tracks. The reality that a track is held in high regard and competed on regularly will always eventually come through. Which is the point.
Tracks that have little competition are viewed as less significant by the competitive community and rightfully so because there are less data sample points available that allow an objective viewpoint of what constitutes high skill in the game - i.e. - there is no comparative data.
For instance - if I am the only person to play a video game, and I tell you that I am great at it and have huge skills, how would you know if that is truly the case? You can't know because there is no other player of the game to compare it to. When you have another player of the game, then you can perform a comparative analysis. The more players you have to compare to, the more accurate and objective your determination can be. This is why the number of competitors on a leaderboard is critically important.
In any regard, a competitor or any verified user else clicking around attempting to single downvote a track for the purpose of trying to lower some other competitor's PSI rating computation is essentially just temporary noise in the system. While it would seem to be significant in regard to tracks with 1 or 2 competitors only, it really isn't. It would be the same thing as that competitor going to Amazon.com and just trying to downvote products. If a product is actually good, it is going to become high rated over time despite your downvoting. This is the same situation with the tracks on TG.
It's fine if someone doesn't like the PSI system of measurement for their own personal reasons, but on paper the system has already proven to withstand predictive model tests as well as logistic regression analysis. The math doesn't lie, the system will scale and does provide a comprehensive , ever-adjusting, fluid measurement.
One thing that may help competitors understand this system is that Twin Galaxies is measuring all performances within its system evenly and is producing a PSI rating for players universally for everyone participating in the system. A participation based system is always going to reward and support those that are participating in it. By definition the system can not measure data that it does not have - so the more data that users put in, the more that they get out.
It is an accurate measurement of the complete and rounded picture of a video game players skillset and competitive value within the system, BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED INTO THE SYSTEM. Every PSI has 100% all the data behind it that can show and demonstrate how it was computed. This is a huge difference from someone merely claiming that they are good at video games. People can claim all they want, which is fine, but few have the 3rd party adjudication data and multi-user comparative systemic data to back it up.
A system like this has a tremendous upside for video game players worldwide. It allows the player value to be separated from the games they play and creates a context for outside parties to understand and invest in. It effectively shifts the focus of content/interest from the GAME to the PLAYER, and it is a very meaningful shift.
It also allows a video game player to accrue a lifelong 3rd party value that is based on data and statistical analysis of their various performances across all games and all platforms they've ever played and submitted into the system. No longer does your video game career end, when the popular game you play falls out of favor. Your accomplishments are recorded and value is accrued and preserved while you move on to a different game to play to build even more career value.
Building your index over time allows you to capture the time/skill/practice investment you make into your gaming career - and it allows outside parties to understand that value regardless of game.
Twin Galaxies will be (and has been) working tirelessly to help mass society understand that value. All indications point to lots of future success with this direction.
There will be more discussion of this later of course!