|
|||||||
| Submission & member moderation Discussion on how results should be monitored, discuss doubtfull results, ... |
 |
| Thread Tools |
|
|||||||
| Submission & member moderation Discussion on how results should be monitored, discuss doubtfull results, ... |
|
| Thread Tools |
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
You missed the rest of his 3DM06 8800 GTX scores, all are hiding the resolution. I will try to report them again using the report tool but the first time I tried that it blocked his next highest score from being reported.
|
|
#22
05-19-2008, 15:21
|
||||
|
||||
|
You are welcome, just trying to let you know what I find. Okay I did each one individually jmke, will check back and let you know if it worked or not.
EDIT: You beat me to the punch! Hehehe... I understand that there is no reason to believe they are cheats, I did not say they were in my reports. It seems funny that he never blocked the resolutions when he used cards other than the 8800GTX though. Last edited by Just Learnin'; 05-19-2008 at 15:23.
|
|
#23
05-19-2008, 16:17
|
||||
|
||||
|
I believe you but it creates major contentions when screenies are improper and I would have no qualms having mine blocked if done improperly. I do have issues with some that have beaten scores of my own that were improperly submitted yet were "validated" by hwbot even though they left a lot to be desired.
Just want to keep the playing field level is all. Is the resolution required to be visible in 3DMark 05 as well? His 8800GTX scores don't show that in the screenshots either.
|
|
#24
05-19-2008, 16:39
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks Lurking [M], erm.... unh... I mean jmke.
|
|
#25
05-19-2008, 18:42
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Was only joking!  Just went with what it said under your Username. 
|
|
#26
05-20-2008, 12:48
|
|||
|
|||
Im a bit annoyed, check this result http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=557756
its been checked by a mod which looks like on two occassions, and is validated as 'an old score' yet it has no proof whatsoever? imo this makes a mockery of the whole validation system! unless this was achoieved under ln2 with a great pot, this clock is NOT possible on a p4 2ghz PLZ check again, you will see this user has a result in the NORTHWOOD category for a 2ghz chip.wllamette chip! I believe this was submitted to 'willamette category in error by the user. btw his other score in super pi 2ghz 'northwood' has no validation at all either. I just went throught the whole hassle of setting up a bench for this chip to so far take all golds for the category to find a score for cpuz has no prrof at all and no way of getting anywhere near it. if you dont believe me get a 2ghz willamette and try, I challenge you to get over 2.6ghz with this chip!! The reason mainly that I even bother to write such a complaint is this. if a score has no proof at all then it should be deleted, otherwise what you are saying is , well once upon a time you could just 'pick' a number and you win! So for anyone in the future tough **** YOU LOSE! IN THIS CASE ITS ME, SO NOT A GOOD WAY TO GO.. this is a matter of princile and seriously ppl should take a stand. At least thats what im doing here bringing to the spotlight, unfair validation. if this stands you could say ALL old results are valid because simply, they are old results!!! Its tough enough trying to compete with pre 1.55-wprime apps without this! Im really begining to wonder if its worth it on these kind of terms. -unhappy-
__________________
Last edited by Bustah; 05-20-2008 at 13:29.
|
|
#27
05-20-2008, 13:39
|
|||
|
|||
|
well im not really upset, more frustrated at spending a lot of time trying to bench an almost unbenchable chip to find a user with an unnatainable score that had been validated 'twice' by a mod/s.
I think you kind of patronise a lot of ppl with your comments here jmke. its like you dont like it if someone is pationate about their benching. I do actually appreciate the work ALL of you do here, but you must appreciate also that the Users of hwbot, spend a lot of time and effort to bench and submit their scores to the database. I really dont think you should be telling ppl how THEY should feel about anything. I f someone feels a certain waythey do and thats it!! I was actually flabbergasted that a score had been vaidated twice yet it had no proof whatsoever. reason enough alone to be deleted if its brought to the attention of a mod surely? regards and respect.
__________________
|
|
#28
05-20-2008, 14:05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ok I see it was checked once by you, my error there, but it was reported three times before you checked it and validated it? how on earth can you validate a score old or not that has no proof whatsoever? you marked it simply 'old score'?
Cmon jmke, we both know that is not good enough. as for the patronise remark, look back at the comment I refer to, you say no need to get upset....fair enuff..but then you put a cheesy grin smiley. Do you not think someone might feel patronised by that? those smiley things can change the whole context of a sentence. You might think im being trvial, but you are not the one benching on this occasion. Like I said before jmke, I do appreciate the work you do, but on this occasion you are not correct. three times reported [before me]nyet its validated simply because its an old score? no proof needed? hmmnn. As for exageratimng as you put it, i was not frustrated because the bot mismatched the hw, more like because a mod had validated a score that no one knows even existed let alone mis matched hw?
__________________
Last edited by Bustah; 05-20-2008 at 14:15.
|
|
#29
05-20-2008, 14:26
|
|||
|
|||
|
No jmke you spoke mods as a collective your words not mine, my discussion here was with you only. I addressed the fact that you came accross a bit patronising. thats all.
You responded to that which is fine. basically you told me im beinmg trivial exagerating and not to be upset with a smiling face, I think im entitled to respond to that and not just let you do it without responding to you. The matter is over as far as im concerned and im sorry it went this way. sometimes its wise to try to understand the other part'ys perspective and not just jump on the defensive. as I said twice already I do appreciate what you do, anfd I know it cant be easy. regards.
__________________
|
|
#30
05-20-2008, 18:24
|
||||
|
||||
|
@jmke,
There is a mistake in here, Have a look at the attachments. This is the second and third score in PiFast in Celeron s478 320: http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=617269 2nd http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=653467 3rd The second score is 60.73s(the system has give him 60.0s) and the third 60.56s Can you please ckeck it and correct it? Edit:Also check the fourth score is well,it says 62.0s and the calculation on the screenshot says 62.93s. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=620077 I haven't been any further.... stealth Last edited by stealth; 05-20-2008 at 18:46.
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
