Submitting Score lowered my ranking

[Relli]

Back when it was fairly new, I played DanTheGoodMan's Minesweeper custom map, decided I loved it, and worked on getting the best possible score. I succeeded, and was #1 in the all-time rankings. Now with the Steam Achievement for being in the top-10 of a map (Born Leader), I decided to go back to that game, redid my perfect-scoring run, and submit it in order to earn the achievement. I did so, and I got the Born Leader achievement. But in doing so, I pushed my score down from #1 to #12 in the lists. This confuses me for several reasons. First of all, I shouldn't be able to lower my score by submitting new scores. I even tested it on Tempus to make certain, and it did not replace my previous best. I can only imagine it's because the scores were all exactly the same, 9934, 23.7 seconds. It updated the time it was posted, if not the score itself, and since it was more recent than the others, it got placed after theirs. But even that doesn't completely make sense, as I wasn't placed at the very bottom of the people who made that same score. Even more confusing is the fact that despite my new score being #12 and thus not in the top ten, I still got the achievement for being in the top-10 using that score.

I mention this with a few hopes. That it could possibly be explained to me, and if it happens to be a bug, that it could be fixed. And I don't know if it's possible, but it would make me very happy to have my #1 ranking restored somehow. For this last, though, I don't hold out too much hope.

[knucracker]

You didn't lower your score or increase your time.  But your placement changed because there is a 12+ way tie on that map.  Previously (previous to about 5 minutes ago) , ties were resolved with the oldest time stamps being first.  I have just changed this to newest time stamp being first.  This means you are currently #1 again.  Check back, though, because if somebody else matches you time on that map they will move into #1.  Most recent play now wins in a tie.

The reason for this is that anytime you play a map your DB record gets updated even if you have the same score and time as a previous run.  The "played count" field will get updated so that will bring the records time stamp up to the present.  The rule for resolving a tie could be anything, so it might as well be "most recent play wins".

[Karsten75]

  I have just changed this to newest time stamp being first.  This means you are currently #1 again.  Check back, though, because if somebody else matches you time on that map they will move into #1.  Most recent play now wins in a tie.

This is wrong. The first person to get the best score should be 1st ranked. We had this exact same issue back in CW1 and CW2. It means that if I get a good score on a map and share my technique, others using my technique will list before me.

You should either simply not accept equivalent scores, or the consequences should be as it was.

[Michionlion]

But if you had that #1 score, then it should not update the timestamp, otherwise you would jump back down.

[knucracker]

The time stamps are tied to the record being updated, which happens even when the score and completion time are the same (the play count changes).  That why if you play the map again and get the same time/score you jump to the bottom of the tied list under the previous system.

Now, I could I suppose not update the time stamps and sort by oldest records first.  So the first record becomes your time stamp.  I could either never update the time stamp or I could update it only if the score or completion time are better.

--edit--
Ok, this model will work as well or better than the last model.  I've just changed it to not update the timestamp on subsequent score posts. Records are sorted by completion time and in the event of a tie the oldest records come first.  I've manually restored Relli's timestamp.

[Relli]

Thank you so much! This means a lot to me.

You didn't lower your score or increase your time.  But your placement changed because there is a 12+ way tie on that map.

I didn't do a good job of explaining (nothing new there), but that's what I was trying to say.
It didn't occur to me before I set the new score, but it was the only thing that made sense afterwards.