Rev3 Up and Running - Complaints, Ideas, Ramblings, Comments ... but no bugs

[OCPerformance]

sorry for the double post but what I still think is a problem is how theres a huge difference in points between something and 0.1

 

for example 9600 gt 1GB in 3d vantage

 

1.5

1.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

 

I think it should be more like

 

1.5

1.2

0.7

0.3

0.1

 

 

Good idea. it is the better way. The work for benching are recompensed

 

Hi guys please answer, no ignore.

[PeterStoba]

Which hall of fame are you referring to? Please link

 

 

Also please note posts with profanity will be ignored and/or deleted. If you can not voice your concerns without cursing, you will not be listened to.

 

Sorry, my mistake.

 

I meant the ranking pages, for example this - http://hwbot.org/listResults.do?cpuModelId=1652&applicationId=13&filterUser=true&filterBlocked=true&limit=100.

 

It's quite hard to read, maybe it's just me.

 

What do you think everybody?

[richba5tard]

So RB, what do you think about a slowly decrease of the Points and not going straight down to 0,1?

 

personally, I don't think one should be awarded points if you come out 3rd out of 5 people. I can understand why being first should receive a decent amount o points, even if there is no competition, but being 3rd out of 5...? And IMHO we should nt award points for the sake of just giving points. Being third will still give you some nice silverware.

[richba5tard]

Sorry, my mistake.

 

I meant the ranking pages, for example this - http://hwbot.org/listResults.do?cpuModelId=1652&applicationId=13&filterUser=true&filterBlocked=true&limit=100.

 

It's quite hard to read, maybe it's just me.

 

What do you think everybody?

 

that page can be improved, I agree

[der8auer]

personally, I don't think one should be awarded points if you come out 3rd out of 5 people. I can understand why being first should receive a decent amount o points, even if there is no competition, but being 3rd out of 5...? And IMHO we should nt award points for the sake of just giving points. Being third will still give you some nice silverware.

 

Yes i agree on that but i also think it should be rewarded to bench unpopular hardware. Or nobody will do it in future... I've read a lot of posts hear and i think nearly all hwbot members would appriciate few more points. In my opinion the top 5 should always be rewarded - even if there are just 5 submissions. Like it was in rev2.

[Oskaliber]

maybe post a screenshot ?

 

Btw, what about achievements in signature? It was always nice addition. I don't really like new achievements system too. It looks like in quakelive now. A lot of sensless stuff.

[PeterStoba]

You just can't please some people.

[knopflerbruce]

Yes i agree on that but i also think it should be rewarded to bench unpopular hardware. Or nobody will do it in future... I've read a lot of posts hear and i think nearly all hwbot members would appriciate few more points. In my opinion the top 5 should always be rewarded - even if there are just 5 submissions. Like it was in rev2.

 

The whole top 5 is too much, being rewarded for being last is just stupid. 3/5 is good in some cases, others not. With 2/5 only it will be the top 40%, and 60% with 3/5. IMO it's better to reward 60% than just 40%, as there may be real competition between the top two, which would leave the rest without boints. Sure "bad" scores will be slightly more rewarded in some cases, but I think it's a better "sacrifice" than the other, which won't encourage benching those categories at all.

[stealth]

I can see every page correct, 1024X768 win XP SP3 IE8 here.

 

What i can't find is my team's page as it used to be, i.e. with all members listed and the points next to every name.

Also what i would like to see in the team page if possible is, the total amound of points every member has give to his team next to his name (for example, global + max hardware points 350 plus 100 hardware points that don't count to his personal rank) so we know how many points in total every one has give to his team.

 

stealth

Edited January 1, 2010 by stealth

[Hollywood]

1.

I want to say "thanks" to the HWBot Crew for giving a place to compare and compete with benchers from all over the world!

 

2.

The way the points are given right now is not what i like to see. IMO it should be like it was in rev2 with some little changes.

 

Why not create 5 categories for 3D benchmarks like this:

 

1. 1x GPU

2. 2x GPU

3. 3x GPU

4. 4xGPU

5. no matter how many GPU's (overall ranking)

 

Benchers should gain points in all categories. Global and HW.

Leave the way point were handed out as it was in rev2.

 

About 2D benchmarks it would be cool to have the same system as for 3D

 

example:

 

1 Core

2 Core

3 Core

.... and so on.

 

Also an overall ranking, no matter how many cores.

Not splited up by sockets.

 

And again: I rly thank the crew for their hard work! But rev2 was workin fine! It just needed some little changes! What you did was to change the complete system.

 

I realy hope, that this is not the final stage of rev3.

Listen to the community is the way to go.

 

 

Hollywood

 

(PCGHX HWBot Team)

[TiN]

And also on head page rankings, those which:

 

CPUZ:

8182.7 mhz

PCMark 2005:

32709 marks

PiFast:

13.98 sec

SuperPi:

6sec 670ms

SuperPi 32m:

6min 9sec 950ms

wPrime 1024m:

14sec 230ms

 

in rev2 links in scores linked to rank table, which was very comfortable.

Now you need to click 5 times, to get TOP scores tables on every benchmark.

 

Also same with hardware rankings.

Earlier we had short description of result rolling down from selected result, now we get full page reload with all site template and so on. This ISN'T better, less usable and less comfortable for those who spend lot of lifetime on hwbot.

 

Same with verification urls and pics, they are under another tab now, to get there you need again full page reload.

 

That's worse, less usable. I understand (maybe) way why admins made this "improvements", page reload will give more hits for ads and stuff, but for usability and user interface it's much bad. I don't care about more traffic, don't care to wait few seconds more , so it's just bad usability complain.

[Advanced]

there are still a few bugs in the algorithm that need to be ironed out;

the first one spotted was awarding 33% of participants in HW ranking instead of 50% as originally planned.

there are also a few cases, as linked above, that show incorrect scaling of rewards. over time and the more RB sleeps, those bugs will be fixed, hardware points will increase.

 

regarding global ranking and WR, there is an ongoing discussion in crew section to see if this can be addressed in a "fair" way, without reverting to "expensive HW at stock clocks rules the rankings" as it was in rev2.

 

Ah okay, good to know.

 

And I want to say once more that I do respect the work and nerves that you guy put into Rev3, keep going

[Splave]

I think with the changes made and alllllll these available HW boints available you should increase the HW boint cap to atleast 500.

 

You were saying you could spend $175 on a setup and earn 670 hw boints but if you are already at the 300 cap you dont get squat to your personal score (team will get it I know) . Global is def harder to come by in the new revision so maybe even it out by increasing HW cap limit?

[der8auer]

The whole top 5 is too much, being rewarded for being last is just stupid. 3/5 is good in some cases, others not. With 2/5 only it will be the top 40%, and 60% with 3/5. IMO it's better to reward 60% than just 40%, as there may be real competition between the top two, which would leave the rest without boints. Sure "bad" scores will be slightly more rewarded in some cases, but I think it's a better "sacrifice" than the other, which won't encourage benching those categories at all.

 

Yea okay whole 5 is maybe to much but then at least 3/5. But i still think that the jump directly to 0,1 is to "hard". Maybe don't reward scores as much as the top 3 but 0,1 is nearly nothing...

[Splave]

quick question to, say I ran i7 at 4c8t. Do I have to set unlcoked cores to 4 or do I leave it blank as they arent unlocked its normal?

[thebanik]

quick question to, say I ran i7 at 4c8t. Do I have to set unlcoked cores to 4 or do I leave it blank as they arent unlocked its normal?

 

They are not cores but threads so for i7 it would be 4 cores.....

[thebanik]

there are still a few bugs in the algorithm that need to be ironed out;

the first one spotted was awarding 33% of participants in HW ranking instead of 50% as originally planned.

there are also a few cases, as linked above, that show incorrect scaling of rewards. over time and the more RB sleeps, those bugs will be fixed, hardware points will increase.

 

regarding global ranking and WR, there is an ongoing discussion in crew section to see if this can be addressed in a "fair" way, without reverting to "expensive HW at stock clocks rules the rankings" as it was in rev2.

 

the algorithm richbastard put up shows Max hardware points reduced to 49.75 whereas it was announced earlier it would be 75 when there are 400 unique members participating??? Is it something that would be ironed out or something that I misunderstood???

[romdominance]

All of my other complaints aside, you guys are doing a very ambitious thing with rev3, and should be commended.

 

Quitting benching because of what the bot does or doesn't is senseless.

 

I think those who have voiced concerns over the danger of multi card benching becoming pointless are very valid. The new system will force everyone to flock to where the only meaningful points can be had, ie single card. More points in the multi category will never come.

 

Unfortunately by making the bot more affordable, the shine of the big score is diminished.

 

Team NBOC is very much like team Pure, we are plotting our new course within this new environment.

[Massman]

in rev2 links in scores linked to rank table, which was very comfortable.

Now you need to click 5 times, to get TOP scores tables on every benchmark.

 

Check on the left of the page

 

That's worse, less usable. I understand (maybe) way why admins made this "improvements", page reload will give more hits for ads and stuff, but for usability and user interface it's much bad. I don't care about more traffic, don't care to wait few seconds more , so it's just bad usability complain.

 

We don't have ads ... certainly no clickables.

 

Frontpage usability will improve over the next few weeks. It takes some time to get our head around the new lay-out as well ...

[Massman]

You were saying you could spend $175 on a setup and earn 670 hw boints but if you are already at the 300 cap you dont get squat to your personal score (team will get it I know) . Global is def harder to come by in the new revision so maybe even it out by increasing HW cap limit?

 

We considered it, but didn't do it because the Overclockers League should mainly be about the global points. It should represent skill over money, extreme oc over air oc and so on.

 

Afaik, the balance between hardware cap and top20 was more tight in rev2.

[Massman]

Yea okay whole 5 is maybe to much but then at least 3/5. But i still think that the jump directly to 0,1 is to "hard". Maybe don't reward scores as much as the top 3 but 0,1 is nearly nothing...

 

Now you have motivation to push for 3rd?

[Massman]

quick question to, say I ran i7 at 4c8t. Do I have to set unlcoked cores to 4 or do I leave it blank as they arent unlocked its normal?

 

The hwbot engine 'knows' what hardware can be unlocked and which can't. If the hardware is not in the list, it will always be placed in the same category.

 

In other words, the engine doesn't allow you to use an i7 in any category but the 4xCPU one.

[TiN]

http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce4_ti_4400

 

lol

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=526256

 

another buggy stuff.

 

[Splave]

thanks for the answers massman!

[der8auer]

Now you have motivation to push for 3rd?

 

No

 

The gap from Points to no-Points (0,1p *gg*) is to big.