New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
crypto mining ?
Going to be AI edge computing or whatever trendy buzzwords are nowadays
Weird, I have both LET and ServerVerify open on Chrome current on an 8 core Ryzen 4000 and I see
LET tab: between 53 and a bit under 60 MB, CPU basically zero (not logged in, tab is inactive)
ServerVerify tab: about 95 MB and 50% to 60% (logged in, tab active, Home Page)
Not too terribly bad (but certainly not decent).
Note: I do have plenty of RAM though; might be a factor.
Note 2: my (not current but neither stone-age) Firefox didn't work at all with ServerVerify, I couldn't even login because - like some other pages too - something did pop up but was covered with something like a semi transparent layer (the kind often used when a site wants you to first click on "agree" or some such. With LET no problems at all.
Is a page like this: https://serververify.com/hosting-deals or https://serververify.com/benchmarks/3abc0528-b13e-4d79-ba73-9ef780b192fb working better for you?
I think the issue you are having could be due to the moving background that is present on the home page and leaderboard pages, among a few others.
Yea, however in general the page isn't really responsive.
Assets take a long time to load, the page loads a lot of them.
The page isn't optimized for performance or loading times.
It's a fair point.
The algorithm does account for the performance metrics of non-Ryzen and non-EPYC servers to better convey the true performance of a well configured and managed multi-core E5 or Gold/or similar Intel host node. I agree that while Ryzens are amazing CPUs, they aren't the only solution for customers looking for a powerful VPS.
We will be rolling out a new datapoint soon that will reflect really positively on hosts that provide average or better CPU performance at lower costs (ie, the single or 2 core type packages that are cheap and much loved here). We will have enough data to roll this out by mid October.
Yes, we can improve the page level optimization I agree.
Sounds like the moving background is part of the problem.
@jbiloh - When I read your replies in this thread, and one thing comes to mind: Humans only, please!
Stop living in the past
AI is the future
Create fake reviews
Drive traffic
$$$ profit
Do you think any sane businessman will not abuse it?
I absolutely understand this, but he's the one using it, when almost a year and a half ago he literally threatened to kick (ab)users with machine and scripted content, asking for real reviews and authentic content on LET (a request for which he received 85 thanks); just to mingle it all a year later with AI crap for profits. On top of that, he uses weasel talk in this very thread to advertise his great project, longing for some financial purpose of bamboozling us with his great achievement. I don't know about you, but I consider this an insult to the common intellect of this community.
I've myself been following that and another thread by another mod... but yeah the levels of hypocrisy leaking from the deep holes here is just what it is
AFAIK the decision was already at the finish line and then this new project came in and so everything was swept under the rug and ignored.
Classic baguettes move by @jbiloh
is ServerVerify Score reliable? Asking since there's a mix of v4, v5, v6 Geekbench results in yabs results. Here https://www.geekbench.com/legacy/ - it says "Note that you cannot compare Geekbench scores from different Geekbench versions. For example, you cannot compare Geekbench 4 scores to Geekbench 5 or Geekbench 3 scores."
That is literally the point: this is the next level of doing anything for $200. Of course this is a dogshit useless biased platform, it was very likely never about creating anything helpful for anyone to begin with but rather to funnel in more biloh bucks
Wtf Rubben, first time I see you lash out like this!
and, did I lie?
No, you stated obvious facts. But doing so in such wild manner may present you a boot out for "being a dick". Everyone understands that the main target of that website is to generate the b bucks at the end of the day. This is business.
i think there are people here that are way more extreme than me (and malicious), so probably no
added geekbench version filter - https://jadeops.github.io/servers/
Check back in on the site in a little time as we continue to develop and advance its features. I think it's going to be useful to many.
Our approach to reviews has changed a lot the last couple weeks after reviewing the feedback here (ie: removed all the low quality sources and content). Sounded good on paper but was not the right approach or well executed.
We are still making progress on making things better. That's happening every day right now.
With enough effort and perseverance I feel pretty confident that ServerVerify will provide some good value to the community and industry as a whole. I'm going to get it there.
PS: I try not to insult anyone. I sure don't want anyone here to feel insulted.
I can't replicate the laggy issues on two machines running Windows 11 and using Firefox. Will keep looking into it though. I think part of what is driving the issue on CPU-limited computers is the moving background.
That said, there is room to improve the efficiency of the site for speed. That is easier and is getting attention now.
Now even scraping non-review threads?
https://serververify.com/reviews
ctrl+f "What's your best/worst purchase on LET?" which is the "review subject", which is just this thread title: https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/4524681
Why, out of all the positive (and negative) reviews in that thread did you only scrape one review (negative) for @HostSlick ? I assume it was scraped since the review title is a copy/paste of the thread title, unless @Skelter did that himself.
I still think it's absurd that the person who is doing the copy/pasting of reviews from LET to ServerVerify gets to decide what rating to give, and do so under the name of the original poster who may disagree with the star rating. (Ex, assigning 3/5 stars for a particular metric, where the actual OP may think it should be 4/5).
I'll give the domain
hostpo.stto anyone who wants to make something honest, fair, and not using fake metrics.@MannDude sites are not scrapped. Data feed is directly from databases of let/leb.
Correct. The whole SQL is checked and pulled for analysis using AI or some other tool. The admin has access to LET database, as well as ServerVerify.
I wonder if there is any option to opt out and be removed from ServerVerify with all the reviews and benchmarks. I did not request to be there, nor did I consent for an account there, nor did I consent for my data to be there. So it would only be fair for @jbiloh to create a way so LET members can request all their data and account to be removed from ServerVerify if they choose so.
Only threads in the Reviews category of LowEndTalk are considered for inclusion on ServerVerify.
In the case of this Review thread, which you cited in your post: https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/210005/whats-your-best-worst-purchase-on-let because it talks about multiple hosting providers we've removed it from the ServerVerify platform.
I'm not even upset that the data is scraped/pulled, more peeved at the fact that it doesn't link to the original source where additional context and commentary may be made, and that these reviews that are being posted under LET user's handles are assigning scores that the users themselves did not determine. Who gets to determine how many stars each metric is assigned, and who gets to do so masquerading as the original poster?
Reviews that are not directly submitted by users of serververify should not contribute to the overall rating of the host, because these reviews are not written with that scoring system in mind.
Just my $0.02.
The source link is in the dev roadmap and will be added to ServerVerify this week (just like the source link for the benchmarks).
That's a fair suggestion, will think through that.
Guys, code doesn't write itself, and AI slop/code you/we (understandably) don't want.
So ,how about
I already saw some changes. While I'm not (at least not yet) a fan of that site I think it would be in the best interest of everyone to give them the time needed to implement changes and to behave rationally.
One year + wasn't enough to get this concept of a plan executed right!!