Proposal: Genealogy & Family History

I went to the above proposal at Area 51 and saw 45% in the Commitment box. Then I clicked on "more info" to expand the box and I was surprised by what I saw:

enter image description here

The Commitment score is supposed to be the minimum of the the three scores below, which are shown as 74%, 46% and 68%. So shouldn't the Commitment score then be 46%? Why isn't it?

This is not a doctored up picture. I have the entire picture of my Windows Phone with more of the Area 51 page and that box in it if you want to see it.

I do have to say that about an hour later, when I decided to ask this question here on Meta Stack Overflow, I checked back at the Genealogy and Family History Q&A proposal site and the calculation was no longer in error and the total Commitment was showing as 46%.

So obviously, the system corrected itself after some time.

But that still leads me wondering why and how this could happen in the first place, since you would think that calculation (an all important one at Area 51), should be so simple to instantly update whenever one of the 3 numbers that define it changes.

So this question was closed after a few days. Is this not an important problem? I don't think it's a cache thing any more because now it appears to be sticky and has been there for a while and this time isn't going away. See the current screen shot:

Is it 52% or 53%

It's been like this now for 19 hours! So after 19 hours, would it still be a cache problem? We've had 3 new Committers since the 200+ Rep person. Shouldn't those have refreshed the cache?

This definitely needs to be fixed!

Update: Now for something again a little different, I just saw this:

Is 56% equal to 57/100?

Is 56% equal to 57/100? Wow!

  • 4
    Perhaps it got a committer just before (there is one of an hour ago) and there is some caching effect? Not really as dramatic as "I couldn't believe what I saw", now is it? ;)
    – Bart
    Commented Sep 14, 2012 at 11:40
  • 3
    The answer is always caching with SE. Everthing is cached, even the caches themselves sometimes. Commented Sep 14, 2012 at 11:48
  • @Bart - Well, yes a little overdramatic - but as a programmer, something wrong is indicated when a minimum is calculated incorrectly. I'll tone that down.
    – lkessler
    Commented Sep 14, 2012 at 12:03
  • @MadScientist - The important number is the overall Commitment score and the one everyone is interested in. Why would the Commitment not be calculated whenever the 3 scores that make it up are calculated? The other 3 should not be posted until the minimum is calculated. If they get cached, all 4 should get cached together.
    – lkessler
    Commented Sep 14, 2012 at 12:06
  • This doesn't seem dire (that proposal is doing quite well), but we'll take a look and make sure things are working as intended.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 2:53
  • @AnnaLear - This post was not so much to help out our proposal, as it was to fix a bug noticed that could be affecting every proposal at Area 51. We just found another problem that's even worse that needs to be fixed. I just posted it at: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/147584/…
    – lkessler
    Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 3:10
  • @AnnaLear - Other problem in my comment above is actually not a problem. Sorry.
    – lkessler
    Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 3:24

1 Answer 1


It is cached. Currently the overall commitment score is recalculated

  • when someone commits
  • when someone uncommits
  • when someone clicks "more info" to view a breakdown of the commitment score components
  • nightly, around UTC midnight

It's possible for it to be off by a bit after committer passes the 200-rep threshold on a different site, for example.

But it should automatically correct itself shortly. Also, in theory, you should be able to refresh the score by clicking "more info" and then reloading the page while logged in.

  • 1
    Thanks @Emmett. But why is the 53% in the bottom image at 53%? That means that value was updated without the 52% being updated. To me that's wrong. Both should be updated at the same time and then there's no inconsistency. If they are then cached, they should be cached together. They may not always be quite up to date, and I'm not complaining about that, since it's inherent in caching. But they should ALWAYS show consistency between them and not show different numbers.
    – lkessler
    Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 23:39
  • 1
    That's a valid point; I suppose we could also refresh the overall commitment score client-side when "more info" is clicked.
    – Emmett
    Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 23:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .