4 ms·

A brief summary of Phoronix benchmarks: nice graphs, meaningless results. [Seriously, Phoronix benchmarks are often very badly designed/executed. I'm not sure

A brief summary of Phoronix benchmarks: nice graphs, meaningless results. [Seriously, Phoronix benchmarks are often very badly designed/executed. I'm not sure whether it's because they really are completely clueless about benchmarking, or because they just don't care.]

reefab 14y ago
They also have a tendency for linkbait headlines and repeating themselves in articles with slight rephrasing to increase the page count. Those tendency combined with the sometimes enormous amount of graphs makes a lot of page views for them.
- ajross 14y ago
  This part is true. It's a spammy site, and annoying. The criticism of the benchmarks, though, is out of line. All benchmarks suck. Why? Because benchmaking is hard. It takes a ton of patience, a ton of diligence, and a ton of hardware. It's easy to sit back typing on the one laptop you use, running one OS, and whine about someone's inability to be an expert across dozens of environment. Yet we all want benchmarks, as evidenced by this post. If you guys really think Phoronix benchmarks can be improved (and obviously they can), I'd appreciate it if you'd get off your MBP's and post some.
  - snogglethorpe 14y ago
    The criticm is not out of line, because although benchmarking is indeed hard, Phoronix doesn't even seem to take the smallest precautions. It would be far better if they'd simply do nothing at all, because as it is, their benchmarks produce misinformation.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    Where should I be going for Linux news other than Phoronix? I constantly here bad things about it, but I also constantly find out about things that I wouldn't have otherwise. I feel "bad" for reading phoronix or something but I don't know what else to read, and LWN ain't cutting it.
    - ajross 14y ago
      Well, that's the thing. They're the best out there. So personally, I give them some latitude with the spammy ad-driven experience. Most of their numbers are just "more of the same", but occasionally they break something truly interesting and everyone rushes to explain it. This particular post wasn't one of those times though.

reefab 14y ago

They also have a tendency for linkbait headlines and repeating themselves in articles with slight rephrasing to increase the page count. Those tendency combined with the sometimes enormous amount of graphs makes a lot of page views for them.

ajross 14y ago
This part is true. It's a spammy site, and annoying. The criticism of the benchmarks, though, is out of line. All benchmarks suck. Why? Because benchmaking is hard. It takes a ton of patience, a ton of diligence, and a ton of hardware. It's easy to sit back typing on the one laptop you use, running one OS, and whine about someone's inability to be an expert across dozens of environment. Yet we all want benchmarks, as evidenced by this post. If you guys really think Phoronix benchmarks can be improved (and obviously they can), I'd appreciate it if you'd get off your MBP's and post some.
- snogglethorpe 14y ago
  The criticm is not out of line, because although benchmarking is indeed hard, Phoronix doesn't even seem to take the smallest precautions. It would be far better if they'd simply do nothing at all, because as it is, their benchmarks produce misinformation.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  Where should I be going for Linux news other than Phoronix? I constantly here bad things about it, but I also constantly find out about things that I wouldn't have otherwise. I feel "bad" for reading phoronix or something but I don't know what else to read, and LWN ain't cutting it.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Well, that's the thing. They're the best out there. So personally, I give them some latitude with the spammy ad-driven experience. Most of their numbers are just "more of the same", but occasionally they break something truly interesting and everyone rushes to explain it. This particular post wasn't one of those times though.