ZorchThatCPU Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 I was notified today that someone said there's a problem with one of my recent submissions. This is the one: http://hwbot.org/submission/2427079 I'm not a big PCM05 bencher, since I don't usually have two or more SSDs laying around to put in RAID in order to make a serious attempt at it. So it's possible I may have overlooked something, and if so, let me know and I'll gladly take that into account on future submissions. I assure you any oversight, if there was one, was not intentional. If I were trying to cheat, I'd be posting much better results than that one. (; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farjam Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 maybe it was because of you forgot to include"opened Result.txt" file in your screenshot, from the first of year 2013 it is mandatory... you can read here for info and see example screenshot: http://hwbot.org/news/881_application_9_rules/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZorchThatCPU Posted September 18, 2013 Author Share Posted September 18, 2013 (edited) maybe it was because of you forgot to include"opened Result.txt" file in your screenshot, from the first of year 2013 it is mandatory... you can read here for info and see example screenshot: http://hwbot.org/news/881_application_9_rules/ Hmm, I can only assume that you mean the unfamiliar-to-me part displayed in the upper middle of the screenshot. If such a thing is desired by the Bot, how does one access it? Thanks in advance for any help, as I have never heard of this before. EDIT TO ADD: If that seems crazy or like an excuse, please be assured, HWBot community, it is not. Feel free to check the pattern of the dates of my submissions and observe me disappearing on a fairly long hiatus until recently after several years of frequent benching. I just haven't been around, and didn't anticipate that the rules for an old benchmark would be changed after all these years. I guess what I'm also saying is that I hope there will be no serious consideration of invalidating my submission, because again, it wasn't even all that good. Not exactly altering the landscape of high-end benching. It's enough of a nuisance to keep up with the latest version of CPU-Z. I'd rather not have to be blindsided by another angle informing me that what was completely valid a year ago or a week ago or yesterday is suddenly worth bupkus. It takes time invested that could have been spent on other things to get these results, and hearing that somebody would like my time to have been wasted is a bit annoying. I wish that whoever "reported" my linked submission had just dropped me a PM to tell me what the new added rule was and how to display it for next time. Edited September 18, 2013 by ZorchThatCPU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farjam Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 when the benchmark finished and you see your score and want to take screenshot, right click on pcmark05 icon on your desktop, click on "open file location" and "result.txt" will be there, open it and includ it in your screenshot alongside cpu-z and gpuz and... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZorchThatCPU Posted September 18, 2013 Author Share Posted September 18, 2013 when the benchmark finished and you see your score and want to take screenshot, right click on pcmark05 icon on your desktop, click on "open file location" and "result.txt" will be there, open it and includ it in your screenshot alongside cpu-z and gpuz and... I appreciate your direct and helpful response. Many thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farjam Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 you're welcome, keep benching bro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 I wish that whoever "reported" my linked submission had just dropped me a PM to tell me what the new added rule was and how to display it for next time. Hello Steve. You wouldn't have opened it if I had sent one. Rules page is a good resource to check once and a while. You know things change rapidly here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZorchThatCPU Posted September 19, 2013 Author Share Posted September 19, 2013 Hello Steve. You wouldn't have opened it if I had sent one. Rules page is a good resource to check once and a while. You know things change rapidly here. Scotty, apparently this would come as a surprise to you, but I certainly would have opened it. On numerous occasions I have found your behavior objectionable (and no doubt you would say the same of me if asked), but I am not sitting around nursing some pathological hatred of you. If anything, I should thank you. It was your treatment of me at your site that appalled enough other people besides myself that I had a ready-made group asking me to start my own site so they wouldn't have to go to yours any more. So really, you're like the third partner directly responsible for launching Overclockt, and come to think of it, I may just add you as an honorary Admin. But seriously, I've always said to anyone who asked that everyone, including you, is welcome at OCt. That still stands. If you ever expressed any interest in burying the hatchet, I'd be receptive to that because life is too short to waste time or energy on hate or even strong dislike. (Although sniping at my 'Bot submissions is not a terribly promising start to mending fences, and color me unsurprised that it turned out to be you doing it.) Any real acrimony between you and me was years ago by now. Might be time to let it go because it's not worth giving a (bleep) about it anymore. In the meantime, I'll even offer you a gift. I recently (within the past week or so) submitted a whole bunch of screenshots dating back to a year or more ago in some cases. All of the PCM05 submissions would be lacking the new info, and they were all submitted after 1/1/13. So if you'd be interested in going back to flag each and every one of them, be my guest. I've said my piece about it, and the HWBot mods can handle it however they want from here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Not interested. Just reported what I noticed that day. Don't feel special, it didn't matter who it was, I'd have done it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZorchThatCPU Posted September 20, 2013 Author Share Posted September 20, 2013 (edited) I'm amazed that any grown man would have that kind of time on his hands, compulsively rooting through people's trash in hopes of finding some dirt. I get it... the classic "angry loner" profile. Congrats on being essentially expendable to the entire rest of the world, so that you can spend all your time here being the George Zimmerman of HWBot. And actually, my guess is that you'd enjoy being compared to Zimmerman, which should tell any bystander a lot about your character (or lack thereof). Hey, I've seen your submissions using engineering samples that weren't reported as such. But I didn't bother mentioning it because I don't care. I have an actual life. If you need that kind of false validation in life, that imaginary success to get you through the day, then I'm willing to let you have it. You actually cheat when you can. And here you are chasing me on protocol issues when you know damn well my results are reported accurately. Sad. Anyway, enjoy being you. Must be a joy every day. (; Edited September 21, 2013 by ZorchThatCPU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Yup, still the same old Steve. Over dramatic and always the victim. Have fun in the sewers homie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZorchThatCPU Posted September 22, 2013 Author Share Posted September 22, 2013 I'm not your "homie" (or anyone else's for that matter). And dry observations about the fact that you are a dreadful excuse for a human being hardly constitute "drama." It's more a recitation of the obvious. Hey, I see you (or some other schmuck like you) did go back and flag some of my entries! Gee, I sure hope it isn't my precious PCMark 05 scores that I never gave a damn about in the first place or I would have used more than one SSD. (; LOL at you, sad little man, as always... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShrimpBrime Posted September 22, 2013 Share Posted September 22, 2013 Don't sweat it Zorchie.... This is THE exact reason I don't bother with PCMark05 a LOOONG time ago. Every year the rules change on this bench at least twice.... May as well be removed and call it a day. It's closely watched by everyone for the breaking of rules and in some lower life terms "cheating".... Ask me, I'd say let people run w/e they want for this, disregard the cap for XP start up and see who can tweak the hardest. I think this way based purely on HW speed. Obviously the one with the fastest DDR3 is going to run software ramdisk and hit a good high score... like it should be??? WHY because OCing ram and then running software off it is a daily basis for many people and should be taken advantage of for any benchmark. So I never understood the rules of restricting software that completely utilizes the hardware..... Either way at the end it's just a number. It doesn't matter how big either. In a way having a sub looked at helps protect you as much as any one. If it's pulled and you redo it, resub, no big deal. Not like your going to banned over this BS benchmark that's packed with BS rules..... My 2 cents and no offence to anyone who reads the above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZorchThatCPU Posted September 23, 2013 Author Share Posted September 23, 2013 This is THE exact reason I don't bother with PCMark05 a LOOONG time ago. Every year the rules change on this bench at least twice.... May as well be removed and call it a day. Obviously, it's up to the 'Bot what the rules are, but yeah, depending on what those rules are, the benchers then get to choose whether to bother with certain benches or not. And I certainly understand being sticklers for detail in regard to world record runs, because there's actually money involved there. But at the phase-change level where I am, it's just the satisfaction of winning sometimes that we stand to gain. It wouldn't be much fun to cheat and know you cheated and stand to have gained nothing materially for it. Why would anyone pretend to be an above-average bencher? (; What I find somewhat perplexing is that there are tons of old submissions on here that don't adhere to the newest set of rules, so why are those submissions still valid? I mean, either it was okay to do it the way it was done back then, or it wasn't okay. Either the results are admissible or they aren't. For that matter, many of my entries were done back when they rules were the same as what I was doing. But I enjoy benching more than I enjoy submitting results, so I have flash drives full of older screenies just laying around here waiting for me to get around to entering them here. But I guess I might as well not even bother to submit my PCMark 05 runs that were run according to the rules at the time, because they have apparently expired. And I'm not going to run right out and buy all of those CPUs a second time just to run PCM 05. Anyway, those are my thoughts. I won't be losing any sleep over the matter, so don't anybody bother to be mad about it if you happen to disagree. 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.