Benji Tshi Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 Can we know exactly what kind of bench it is about? Can somebody give us the link? There is already a lot of links in post #2, but i have to update it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anvil Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Ok thank you for the answer, I didn't know where to look with all the links you provided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quentj Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Is there a page with all the modifications and dates of application for the rules of hwbot ? (which can add help in this kind of case) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richba5tard Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Summary of all rules (contains updates): http://hwbot.org/hwbot.post.do?postId=1038 Updates : http://hwbot.org/searchNews.do?title=rules Please keep in mind we do not block for the fun of it. We try only to block when a submission is not 100% according to the rules and it has been reported or is suspicious, or is in the top 20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dami1stm Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Damien give me the ORB number, your account, password and I will do my best with Futuremark to solve the problem.I hate this sort of situation Ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor941 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Summary of all rules (contains updates):http://hwbot.org/hwbot.post.do?postId=1038 Updates : http://hwbot.org/searchNews.do?title=rules Please keep in mind we do not block for the fun of it. We try only to block when a submission is not 100% according to the rules and it has been reported or is suspicious, or is in the top 20. Hi, I do agree with you but if you look at the results we have posted and that have been moderated, it seems clear that we didn't know this subtests rule - we as well haven't benched and posted for fun, if we have known we would have screend with the subtests cause it takes something like 2 second to open the window! Hoping you will understand... Thx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anvil Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Thor941, no offense but everyone is supposed to know the rules. If scores are not following the rules, absence of knowledge is not an excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor941 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Anvil, no offense as well but it seems clear that a lot of posts have not been moderated based on this rule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmax_oc Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Summary of all rules (contains updates):http://hwbot.org/hwbot.post.do?postId=1038 Updates : http://hwbot.org/searchNews.do?title=rules Please keep in mind we do not block for the fun of it. We try only to block when a submission is not 100% according to the rules and it has been reported or is suspicious, or is in the top 20. Hello RB and nice to see here. Concerning the first link, it show the current rules updates the 20th january. So I agree to say that subtests are asked since this date. However, some moderators just said that these subtests are only good to investigate in case of suspicious scores (it's not the case here since Neofroce bloqued several PCMark 2005 with old CPU for example) Second point, you have to admit that you make a dedicated news for 3d01 changes for extremely old graphic card (very few members) and HWBot didn't mention a major change in 3Dmark/PCMark rules : subtests. You cannot say that it's strictly our fault not to follow an invisible update in rules... The best for everybody is to accept every score without subtest (except suspicious like Quad CF 4870X2 on 3d03). Then, you write a good and complete news annoncing this major change. But it's up to HWBot's crew. Third point, if you stay on your position (no subtest => moderation), so I want that every score in this situation get the treatment as we received. I'm quite sure that it concerns more than one thousand bench. Finally, if you stay on your position, what are the exact criteria to delete scores without subtests ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richba5tard Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 The summerized rules page is indeed from the 20th january this year. The rules page for benchmark submission is from 15 may 2008, so that's nearly a year old. There has never been a specific news post for subtests because it has been in the rules since they were first published. I know you don't read the rules each time you submit a score, but you should have read them once. Don't take it personal, we have nothing to gain by blocking scores. FFS, even some of my scores are blocked and I am the owner of this project. eg: http://hwbot.org/benchmark.application.info.do?applicationId=2#rules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmax_oc Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 OK so I'm sure you will understand we may check every screen from the 15 May 2008 and report all the incomplete ones. It's sad, it represent a lot of work, 99% of users will hate us but if it's the lonely way to get a fair HWBot, we may take the risk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Again, we don't block scores JUST to block them ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benji Tshi Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 Massman & richba5stard > I think Jmax understand it well. But he would like to say that if it's the rules for a long time, our results have been moderate, and it's normal. But to be fair, all results which doesn't match with the rules must be blocked. I hate this, because i believed everyone should moderate itself. But as it's not what's happening, hwbot crew is here to be sure everything is fair. And to be fair, rules must apply to everyone since they have been wrote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Massman & richba5stard > I think Jmax understand it well. But he would like to say that if it's the rules for a long time, our results have been moderate, and it's normal. But to be fair, all results which doesn't match with the rules must be blocked. I hate this, because i believed everyone should moderate itself. But as it's not what's happening, hwbot crew is here to be sure everything is fair. And to be fair, rules must apply to everyone since they have been wrote. Great, the moderators have become the slaves of our rules. I told you on MSN as well, there's no way I'm going to spend my free time checking 275.000 results to find just a very small error and block it. Results are only to be blocked when they're suspicious, not just for fun. It's the same reason why I don't block scores that are reported because someone with a lower score wants more points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quentj Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Summary of all rules (contains updates):http://hwbot.org/hwbot.post.do?postId=1038 Updates : http://hwbot.org/searchNews.do?title=rules Please keep in mind we do not block for the fun of it. We try only to block when a submission is not 100% according to the rules and it has been reported or is suspicious, or is in the top 20. It's not what I was looking for. Is there a page with all changes of rules in all benchmarks ? I'm not clear. It needs an exemple. I've seen this score http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=547993 which is for me suspicious and has a lack of validation. But how can I know what were the exact rules in 2006 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intouch Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Massman, You said "Results are only to be blocked when they're suspicious, not just for fun.". I would like to believe you But could please tell us why the score posted after our bench party and blocked by moderator's are suspicious? The only reason given is: "no subtest detail". It's so lighter no ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor941 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Great, the moderators have become the slaves of our rules. I told you on MSN as well, there's no way I'm going to spend my free time checking 275.000 results to find just a very small error and block it. Results are only to be blocked when they're suspicious, not just for fun. It's the same reason why I don't block scores that are reported because someone with a lower score wants more points. So our scores seem suspicious? Based on what? No subscores? Why not but you'll have to threat all the other scores the same way, sorry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 They were suspicious because of hardware sharing, hence this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benji Tshi Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 So we're back to what we was talking about on MSN : when all hwbot crew will be convinced that there is no sharing, all the results (exepts those who are really incorrect because lack of some details like GPUz or bench settings, etc...) will be restored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor941 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 so now that you have pictures and videos are they still "sharing" suspicious? I yes, I really don't understand how anybody on the bot can prove that he is clocking with is own HW!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 So we're back to what we was talking about on MSN : when all hwbot crew will be convinced that there is no sharing, all the results (exepts those who are really incorrect because lack of some details like GPUz or bench settings, etc...) will be restored. That's NOT what I said! And I believe I made that very clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 I yes, I really don't understand how anybody on the bot can prove that he is clocking with is own HW!!! 1/ It's not upto Hwbot to prove fault, it's upto the user to point out that we're incorrect. I believe the crew is very, very easy on this subject. 2/ It's not because we can't prove it's okay. If we have doubts, we want to know what's up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor941 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 And do you think you got enough proof now or...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richba5tard Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 It's not what I was looking for. Is there a page with all changes of rules in all benchmarks ? I'm not clear. It needs an exemple. I've seen this score http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=547993 which is for me suspicious and has a lack of validation. But how can I know what were the exact rules in 2006 ? Before the rules were written down for each bench app, the rule was that you need a clear screenshot, including cpu-z and rivatuner or alike. The linked submission does not have a very clear screenshot. If you think the submission is suspicious (and i would agree with you), just report it. We want to filter out the submissions which are incorrect, not those who have small verification issues but seem perfectly fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 We're not talking about the hardware sharing issue here. We're talking about the reason why the score was suspicious and got blocked. It's pretty simple: suspicious + not following rules = blocked score. I believe no one is still on the sharing issue, so only problem is the subtest at the moment. But, does solving the first issue automatically solves the second one? If a man is brought to justice for murder and theft and turns out he didn't kill, does that mean he shouldn't be convicted for theft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.