Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!utkcs2!de5 From: de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks Subject: Re: benchmark evaluations Message-ID: <1990Dec12.202608.3906@cs.utk.edu> Date: 12 Dec 90 20:26:08 GMT References: <12220@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1990Dec12.070209.3272@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1990Dec12.140615.27870@cs.utk.edu> <1990Dec12.182926.14306@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Sender: news@cs.utk.edu (USENET News System) Reply-To: de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Lines: 49 In article <1990Dec12.182926.14306@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >In article <1990Dec12.140615.27870@cs.utk.edu> Dave Sill writes: > >>The fact that you'd moderate this thread out is evidence that leaving >>it unmoderated was the right decision. > >I have no intention of doing that. Let's take a step back and look at your comment in context. In article <1990Dec12.070209.3272@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >In article <12220@hubcap.clemson.edu> mark@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mark Smotherman) writes: > >>IMHO, "bc" only has compactness on its side, with representativeness >>questionable and reproducibility totally ruled out. Why, then, is there >>continuing interest? > >Because the group isn't moderated? So you conjectured that the reason there was continuing interest was that the group was unmoderated. This implies that you think moderation would have squelched the bc thread, no? It's hardly a leap, then, to assume that you'd filter out bc articles. >The fact that you jump to such >conclusions is evidence that any attempt to moderate this group would >have to include educating users as to what moderation is for -- >clarifying points, preventing duplication, and generally raising the >signal to noise ratio. 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? I'm fully aware of moderation and its pros and cons, thank you. And why do you think I'm maintaining and posting the bc results? I've gotten a couple dozen mail messages that would otherwise have been postings. >>Could be. Why doesn't someone keep a table of SPEC results? > >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.) -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support