Hi all,
I noticed that the sharer rankings for ADS-B feeders (https://planefinder.net/coverage/receivers/all) are calculated solely based on the number of positions that each receiver reports. This means a receiver who has sent more positions will have it ranked higher than those who have sent less.
I see a potential flaw here: that this favours quantity over quality installations which have a wider range of coverage. This means one can live close to the airport and have poor coverage but due to the frequency of flights, will have them ranked higher, or, more importantly, this means one can easily rank higher if they share more positions (which can again differ due to the sources used) simply.
By contrast, all other major competitors use a combination of max range, avg. range and uptime to provide rankings.
For Example:
FlightRadar24 - as below
RadarBox: Uptime^2 * (Avg Range + (Max Range/5))
Due to this flaw, it may be possible to rank higher (as I have tested) by gaming the system by sharing more positions. This needs to change.
What are your thoughts on this, all?
Regards
Akshay
I noticed that the sharer rankings for ADS-B feeders (https://planefinder.net/coverage/receivers/all) are calculated solely based on the number of positions that each receiver reports. This means a receiver who has sent more positions will have it ranked higher than those who have sent less.
I see a potential flaw here: that this favours quantity over quality installations which have a wider range of coverage. This means one can live close to the airport and have poor coverage but due to the frequency of flights, will have them ranked higher, or, more importantly, this means one can easily rank higher if they share more positions (which can again differ due to the sources used) simply.
By contrast, all other major competitors use a combination of max range, avg. range and uptime to provide rankings.
For Example:
FlightRadar24 - as below
RadarBox: Uptime^2 * (Avg Range + (Max Range/5))
Due to this flaw, it may be possible to rank higher (as I have tested) by gaming the system by sharing more positions. This needs to change.
What are your thoughts on this, all?
Regards
Akshay