Hi!
In order to get a significantly different result, they'd need mass-checks with network tests enabled... That's a pretty CPU time just to try to get the score of the WS list up.
Uhm we also did put in, not only CPU time, but human cycles to clean out the list. So i think effords are made on both sides. I must agree with Chris i was also disappointed with the WS score. But lets see if we can boost them up for 3.1.x
I think efforts should be focused on improving the accuracy of
the WS list, and then when the next re-run happens it should end up with a better score. However, I think looking for a re-run right now is a bit premature, unless you've already made some heavy changes on
the back-end which should impact accuracy.
Understood. And yes, we have made some changes. I know I have on my end. And removed several files that had problems. Our testing for FPs has gotten extremely better over the past few weeks. New tools and such. Jeff is also like a hamster on crack. I don't think he sleeps either. He just keeps mumbling "No eff pees, no eff peesssssssss". If he starts wearing nothing but a loin cloth and eating raw fish....I'm calling a doctor.
Yes very true. We also would like to include JP in the next mass checks, so we can see how scoring would look like in the current situation.
I shall wait for 3.1 for new score. Hopefully everyone else will raise the score on their own.
I hope we can also have some in between stats, so the 3.1.x scores wont come as a surprise :)
Bye, Raymond.
