Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f
From: gl8f@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Re: benchmark evaluations
Message-ID: <1990Dec13.050207.24319@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 13 Dec 90 05:02:07 GMT
References: <1990Dec12.140615.27870@cs.utk.edu> <1990Dec12.182926.14306@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1990Dec12.202608.3906@cs.utk.edu>
Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Lines: 33

In article <1990Dec12.202608.3906@cs.utk.edu> de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) writes:

>  It's hardly a leap, then, to assume that you'd filter out bc articles.

But it's not true. One of the purposes of a moderator is to take
articles like yours and say, "Hey, ask the guy in email and then
you'll know."

>> Which would you rather read: 10 postings giving
>>bc benchmark results with no comments, or 1 posting giving 10 sets of
>>results?
>
>What's that got to do with the question of why there is continuing 
>interest in the bc test?

Because I had been skipping over most of the bc articles, because
they're repetetive. That's what was running through my head when I
read your message. And I gave an example of how moderation could
produce a better signal to noise even with a bad benchmark, which
might be driving away readers.

Your reply would have fit well in alt.flame, but I suspect the readers
don't give a hoot what my intentions are, but might be interested in
positive things that moderation could do.

>>Go for it. The only source I have of SPEC results is copyrighted, and
>>very incomplete.
>
>Hmmm.  Anyone got any SPEC results?  (E-mail, please, and I'll edit.)

You might want to check out the copyright issues first. Or perhaps it
would be a good idea if someone contacted SPEC and asked them about
such listings.