I'm actually not familiar with previous system so I'm not comparing and there's no implication of "fudging" by you. not sure why you go there... you're simply getting feedback that the criteria doesn't make sense for a "fit-all" and that there are different ways to more accurately represent/measure what you are trying to achieve with "uses own chips" or the whole "age" concept.
I'm pointing out that the "uses own chips" criteria is problematic and doesn't make sense to apply to companies that will not make their own chips ever. it's like trying to compare two orange trees from two different orchards and having an apple tree in the mix. the apple tree will always get 1/10 for it's "orange production."
These ratings don't make sense. Case and point, ASICMiner is #1, but no longer ships any miners, only chips. However, you ding a company like RockMiner with 1/10 on using own chips BECAUSE they use ASICMiner chips, your #1 rated company...
BTW, ASICMiner should be #1, but why ding other companies who use their chips?
this is flawed.
Because ASICMiner has put down $2-5M in money for those chips, not including the time, expertise and investment. Without differentiating between chip designers and OEMS, I could now start "dogie's woofing rigs", buy $2000 of A1's off the 2nd market and be just as trustworthy from that criteria as a company thats invested 1000x as much as me. $2000 would be a small price to pay for a scammer to run with $100,000.
Rockminer haven't invested the same crazy amounts of money in chips, so they can't be rewarded in that criteria. Don't think of it of a ding, think of it of a buff for people investment 7 figure sums in chip design and manufacture.
This makes no sense either. Your other criterias should handle your woofing rigs scenario. If they don't then your system is even more flawed than I thought.
Look, you've been testy before when provided feedback that's designed to help you become better. Feedback isn't an attack on you, it's provided to help you.
You can do whatever you want, but your manufacturer ratings are not well thought out.
The old system was criticised because it relied too much on me deciding exactly how you're asking me to... between the lines... "yes they've delivered but....", "yes its on time but....", "yes 95% of people have no problems but there are a few refund problems"....
This system specifically removes that - I'm not fudging any of it at all. Its an open, numerical system which both the companies and the public can see specifically what is controlling the ratings of, and what those ratings mean.
Feedback isnt feedback when the feedback is "it doesn't work" and ends like that. The solution you're implying but not stating is the old system, which doesn't work for the above reasons. This is the best of what we have. Feel free to propose otherwise.
hah, my analogy was clearer: it is like penalizing Dell or Compaq for not producing their own CPUs.
I think Dogie is approaching this in a different way, from the paranoid perspective of how harder would be for a scammer to game his "system".
So basically the more money a company invests (hence the emphasis on "size"), he thinks it is less likely that they will be scammers.
And he also considers that if a company produces own chips, there are serious amount of money involved, therefore it is not likely for scammers to plan a quick con by actually having invested an absurd amount of money producing chips.
But producing or not producing own chips
is irrelevant, OEM investments are not negligible. They have to buy the chips, produce the pcbs, assemble them, test them, and ship them.
So the entry barrier is still quite high there. Penalizing for not producing their own chips is ridiculous.
The key criterias that actually matters is: consumer satisfaction, reliability, consistency on their quality, consumer support and breaking promises. And "age" is important especially if they are delivering excellence: consistency over time is extremely hard to keep unless your internal processes are efficient and streamlined.
Amateurs' quality will fluctuate and be erratic (aka. Avalon). Professionals will attempt to apply Six Sigma.
Dogie shouldn't be worrying or even expect to predict on how scammers might manipulate his "metrics", especially if he is hoping to somehow detect beforehand a scamming company.
It is a pointless effort to try to counter-scheme scammers, go straight to the outcome of scams: are they delivering or not? Very simple.
