QUOTE(Beryl @ Mar 18 2012, 16:16)
So then the reason for the extremely different numbers is because it now uses visits instead of hits?
Well, when it calculates score, it's supposed to do min(visits * 20, hits) for a given period. But there was a subtle flaw in the code that made it into min(visits * 20, visits), which means that the actual score could be as much as 20 times larger when it runs again.
Which doesn't actually
matter for anything, but there could be some minor placement shifts if someone has a lot of very small galleries.