R5: UGP/GTPP fix for exotic categories

[Don_Dan]

@Teemto:

 

oops

 

Do I have to say more?

[Rasparthe]

from 39th to 890 or something with 94 points from competitions only and no other points.

After recalculation I moved to 644th place, yeeey.

 

Addiction to exotic chips will do that to you. Or the Hardware points are broken somehow, I'm receiving zero points in the Hardware section as well.

[Massman]

Sad day for HWbot, too bad core misunderstanding of what drives HWBOT still alive and well. Can't wait until all points are disabled unless you are using latest CPU (4770k) and latest GPU (Titan). Very disappointing, I'm sure policies that treat certain segments of the site like second class members will continue to grow and expand the membership.

 

I consider this change one by community request, not top-down from HWBOT. Please don't turn this around and use it as "proof" we're not engaged with the community

 

[Massman]

Addiction to exotic chips will do that to you. Or the Hardware points are broken somehow, I'm receiving zero points in the Hardware section as well.

 

The points are broken in some places, it has nothing to do with exotic categories.

 

Cfr. http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=79152

[I.nfraR.ed]

I don't have many exotic categories with a lot of points. Actually it might be Sempron 145 Cinebench only where I have full Global points and that's a rather popular category.

Although I have many subs in low-points rankings with old chips/vgas, it won't hurt my ranking.

 

There was definitely something wrong, because I had not global and hw points, but now they are back to normal level, though I expect when everything is recalculated I will move back to 30-40th place (16th now).

[der8auer]

Great improvement!

 

@ Rasparthe: The HWBot points have to represent the effort or skill it takes to achieve a score. 60 points for a result which was achieved on stock clocks is too much.

[RULE]

i've lost 402 points and some people in Italy that not bench more from year, jump above me?

there's something wrong

 

POINTS EARNED

League points: 117.1 in Overclockers League

Team Power Points: 958.2 earned for the team (GTPP and: HTPP)

Worldrecord: 0 earned with world records

Global: 114.6 earned in benchmark rankings

Hardware: 307.8 earned in hardware rankings

competition: 2 earned in competitions

Total Points: 424.4 points in total

Edited July 3, 2013 by RULE

[K404]

Maybe the engine needs more time to finish calculating and updating.

 

Any complaints within 24 hours are (IMO) too hasty.

[RULE]

no problem buddy.

you know, there is a lot of work behind the points, isn't only 'points'...

[knopflerbruce]

Sad day for HWbot, too bad core misunderstanding of what drives HWBOT still alive and well. Can't wait until all points are disabled unless you are using latest CPU (4770k) and latest GPU (Titan). Very disappointing, I'm sure policies that treat certain segments of the site like second class members will continue to grow and expand the membership.

 

Sadly, points are mostly rewarded by the number of "noobs" you beat, rather than the actual skill required to beat your score. Not only that, inactive rankings get devalued simply because there are few recent subs, not because the submission skill level has decreased.

[Rasparthe]

I consider this change one by community request, not top-down from HWBOT. Please don't turn this around and use it as "proof" we're not engaged with the community

 

 

I wasn't submitting it was "proof" HWBOT isn't engage with the community, I'm just disappointed that it decided to latch onto this idea as proof it IS engaged with the community. Listening to the members that have the most to gain from stamping down points from so called exotic chips doesn't seem like a good idea. You know my views on how much emphasis HWBOT places on current, highest end hardware and how it creates disincentive to new members. Providing one less avenue for members to gain some recognition and shine on the site doesn't seem a great idea. If these "exotic" setups are so easy to get points, they wouldn't be exotic. I don't plan on harping on it, since I'm the only one with the view.

 

 

The points are broken in some places, it has nothing to do with exotic categories.

 

Cfr. http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=79152

 

I did know that, couldn't resist the sarcastic response.

 

Great improvement!

 

@ Rasparthe: The HWBot points have to represent the effort or skill it takes to achieve a score. 60 points for a result which was achieved on stock clocks is too much.

 

Some were indeed at stock, not by choice I would guess, much more likely hardware related. In those areas where the hardware allowed it, there was even battles for top spot using latest chips. All I'm pointing out is that HWBOT treats those members as second class overclockers.

 

I guess we will see you check off the "No points" option for this submission then.

 

http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2396937_der8auer_xtu_core_i3_3250_384_marks

 

60 globals for 3% overclock? Or because it wasn't at stock you are comfortable with it?

 

I hope that time will tell that I'm wrong about it. Don't know how the submission rates/account activation are improving/decreasing at HWBOT so all my own opinion. If this change helps then I'm all for it, I don't have skin in the game since I'm not interested in those setups but can only empathize if I was.

[K404]

no problem buddy.

you know, there is a lot of work behind the points, isn't only 'points'...

 

Allowing 24 hours while the database & algorithm sort themselves out changes nothing. Assume everyone is affected in the same way. If there was a seeding deadline that passed while the re-calculation is still happening, you would have a point (and there would be uproar!) but....there isn't.

 

Seriously, even if you submit 1000 scores that took 3 years, 24 hours is nothing. Go and bench something. The leaderboards are still up-to-date, you know what MHz and scores to aim at

[der8auer]

I guess we will see you check off the "No points" option for this submission then.

 

http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2396937_der8auer_xtu_core_i3_3250_384_marks

 

60 globals for 3% overclock? Or because it wasn't at stock you are comfortable with it?

 

I hope that time will tell that I'm wrong about it. Don't know how the submission rates/account activation are improving/decreasing at HWBOT so all my own opinion. If this change helps then I'm all for it, I don't have skin in the game since I'm not interested in those setups but can only empathize if I was.

 

Actually I did the submission and posted this in the internal Staff section yesterday:

 

We really have to get rid of the 60p results. It's kind of funny that I'm getting 62p for such a result without any afford or competition: http://hwbot.org/submission/2396937_der8auer_xtu_core_i3_3250_384_marks

 

The global points have to have a relation to the number of submission.

 

This should actually show that I dont care about the points of this submission at all. Just wanted to show that the current system has to be changed and I assume it worked

 

Seems like you got the point with the last bit of your posting. This also applies to the Cinebench and wPrime server-scores.

Edited July 3, 2013 by der8auer

[Rasparthe]

I consider this change one by community request, not top-down from HWBOT. Please don't turn this around and use it as "proof" we're not engaged with the community

 

 

Actually I did the submission and posted this in the internal Staff section yesterday:

 

 

 

This should actually show that I dont care about the points of this submission at all. Just wanted to show that the current system has to be changed and I assume it worked

 

Seems like you got the point with the last bit of your posting. This also applies to the Cinebench and wPrime server-scores.

 

 

I'm glad to see you are consistent, it says alot for your integrity. Perhaps you misunderstood the reason I posted it, because I think its excellent that a dual core without a K designation can grab 60 globals. Is it so hard to see the progression from someone who has that dual core Ivy, wants to check out what HWBOT is all about, finds out his overclock is pretty good, moves onto other/better hardware because he is hooked by the fact he got some initial, first contact joy from his score? Is the fear that we are going to see dual core Ivy/Haswell binning, 100 chips at a time, really worth destroying yet one more way to hook newcomers? Especially on a platform that actually provides little/no benefit from additional cooling as your score demonstrates.

 

I'm honestly not trying to get a debate about it going, I see the direction that HWBOT has chosen as is their right/choice. I have voiced my thoughts on it before and don't think my view is widely held. I hope the chosen direction is the correct choice, its completely my opinion to disagree. I hope to be proven wrong.

[Massman]

Fine. We'll just implement that "rainbows and unicorns for all" algorithm we've secretly held back from you guys for the past five years.

[K404]

Unicorns don't exist.

 

Another fucking lie, I am so sick of it.

 

 

 

:D

[Strunkenbold]

Perhaps you misunderstood the reason I posted it, because I think its excellent that a dual core without a K designation can grab 60 globals. Is it so hard to see the progression from someone who has that dual core Ivy, wants to check out what HWBOT is all about, finds out his overclock is pretty good, moves onto other/better hardware because he is hooked by the fact he got some initial, first contact joy from his score?

 

+1

 

Grab an 960T, unlock it, make scores, have fun. Same goes probably to this i3 setup. These are really affordable possibilities in entering OC and getting actually some points.

 

Ofcourse getting 60 globals in superpi is a much harder job but we really take out diversity of the competition. Who will will fire up 4 Opterons for 10 points?

 

I just want to say dont make the bot too strict, too exact. Let mutliple ways to accomplish things.

 

I guess we cant change this now anyway as the patch seems to be about to be applied. So this was just my 2cents....

[TaPaKaH]

You know, there is a category of people who bench ridicilous setups just to get 2 hardware points for a gold cup. People who run 4x Opteron setups usually fall in such category anyway, so the bot will not lose much in terms of participants' numbers.

[Teemto]

Unicorns don't exist.

 

Another bunnying lie, I am so sick of it.

 

 

 

:D

 

WTF they don't exist? Uni doesn't exist?? But,... but,...

Noooo this can't be!

WHY?!!! (thinks about ending his life)

[der8auer]

The reason why you dropped down is not related to the exotic hardware change. There is a bug in the ranking and the points of some users are not calculated correctly.

 

Please check this topic: http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=79152&page=4

 

 

 

 

So no reason to worry It will be fixed soon and you'll get your points back.

Edited July 3, 2013 by der8auer

[I.M.O.G.]

Sadly, points are mostly rewarded by the number of "noobs" you beat, rather than the actual skill required to beat your score. Not only that, inactive rankings get devalued simply because there are few recent subs, not because the submission skill level has decreased.

 

2 things:

 

1. Higher participants increase probability that one is competing against many non-noobs. Lower participants increase the probability that one is the only one playing who knows what he is doing. With the breadth of hardware and variety of rankings and rewards, I think this algo update is a step in the right direction... It isn't perfect, but it isn't too difficult to do, and its a more logical way to reward participants that scales both with high or low competition. With so much hardware and so many rankings, I can't think of a feasible solution that would be better at addressing actual skill.

 

Well, I can think of another solution, but it probably wouldn't be feasible... Instead of only awarding points based on number of participants, the algorithm could also account for the quality of participants you beat. For example, if you beat 9 other participants, that would be worth 10 points. If 2 of those participants were ranked highly within their league, you get additional bonuses because you beat other skilled Overclockers. Probably too complicated to implement, however it would address both the amount and quality of competition.

 

Ultimately though, I am the opposite of rasparthe on this issue. I don't believe awarding the same points for beating 2000 people or for running hardware no one else bothers to run is any good, especially when it rewards stock clock submissions that rank people higher than others legitimately trying to overclock.

 

2. How do inactive rankings lose points? Is there a decay element in the algorithm? When does point decay start? I have never seen this personally - I've only seen points decrease when my submissions are beaten.

[knopflerbruce]

2 things:

 

1. Higher participants increase probability that one is competing against many non-noobs. Lower participants increase the probability that one is the only one playing who knows what he is doing. With the breadth of hardware and variety of rankings and rewards, I think this algo update is a step in the right direction... It isn't perfect, but it isn't too difficult to do, and its a more logical way to reward participants that scales both with high or low competition. With so much hardware and so many rankings, I can't think of a feasible solution that would be better at addressing actual skill.

 

Well, I can think of another solution, but it probably wouldn't be feasible... Instead of only awarding points based on number of participants, the algorithm could also account for the quality of participants you beat. For example, if you beat 9 other participants, that would be worth 10 points. If 2 of those participants were ranked highly within their league, you get additional bonuses because you beat other skilled Overclockers. Probably too complicated to implement, however it would address both the amount and quality of competition.

 

Ultimately though, I am the opposite of rasparthe on this issue. I don't believe awarding the same points for beating 2000 people or for running hardware no one else bothers to run is any good, especially when it rewards stock clock submissions that rank people higher than others legitimately trying to overclock.

 

2. How do inactive rankings lose points? Is there a decay element in the algorithm? When does point decay start? I have never seen this personally - I've only seen points decrease when my submissions are beaten.

 

PJ could probably give you the detalis.

 

http://hwbot.org/benchmark/wprime_-_32m/rankings?start=0&cores=1#start=0#interval=20

 

60 points for this one does not match the # of users competing. I bet it would be 100+ under normal circumstances, and who knows what will happen when the "obscure ranking fix" is done. Maybe it will drop further? Not sure how the fix works, if it counts activity or participants.

[Massman]

The real annoying part of ALL the complaints and drama about the points is that this patch has not even been applied in production! None of the effects of this patch can be seen on the production. None.

 

- http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cinebench_r11.5/rankings?cores=24#start=0#interval=20

- http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cinebench_r11.5/rankings?cores=32#start=0#interval=20

- http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cinebench_r11.5/rankings?cores=20#start=0#interval=20

 

All we did was give a heads-up. It would be nice if, for a change, people would read the posts before starting all the drama.

 

Now, before we do so, here are the now and improved algoritms

[knopflerbruce]

I know I've been refreshing some rankings from time to time to see the impact.

 

However, is it possible to get some more details on the algorithm? You've covered the changes for the 'obscure' rankings, but you've also mentioned changes for "medium-popularity" rankings...? I cannot find the post, maybe it's my brain that's messing with me.

[IanCutress]

Interesting that Dead Things disappears from the EL top 20 completely, no?