Quote from: waldohoover on July 27, 2014, 03:16:50 PM

Quote from: Minor Miner on July 27, 2014, 03:00:15 PM

Quote from: dogie on July 27, 2014, 10:47:21 AM

This company's rating has changed in the relaunched manufacturer trustworthiness thread.

your rating for them does not make sense. they delivered to me, yes late but less late than avalon and in line with when KNC delivered to me their "in stock" jupiters that took three weeks to arrive because they were not assembled.
they also have done RMAs and have responded to problems etc. They delivered everyone's order also.
I do not think they deserve to be right up beside spondoolies but they certainly do not deserve to be where you have ranked them.

+1

Most of those ratings do not sit where I personally rank them but meh, it's not waldohoover's rating list, it's his.

I mean, BTCGarden that low?.. Spondoolies... that high? Bitmain is killing it right now and should probably be knocked up a few points. And KnC at 47, really?.. Too much FUD took place for that.

Additionally, is this based on personal experience or simply the speculation of experiences that are shared here on the forum? I want to say the latter, unless you have XX of units from each of these companies. As someone who does, I say take that trust list with a grain of salt.

Agreed, Cointerra shipped a large number of systems in the month they were sposed to be shipped and were relatively on time. To give them a score of 1/10 for 'on-time' delivery - the same score that Hashfast, ButterFlyLabs, BitMine, and BlackArrow also got - when they delivered much much later - if at all - makes it hard to agree with the scoring system (the methodology is fine, but the actual scoring sseems to be totally at the whim of Dogie and a vocal minority). Cointerra certainly doesnt deserve 10/10 for timeliness, but since majority of the (thousands of) systems they shipped were pretty much delivered on-time, i think it would be hard to justify anything other than a 7 or 8 out of 10 on that score.

its a somewhat selectively accurate chart that has downgraded some companies more than others for making identical mistakes. for instance, AsicMiner's latest chip ended up much worse than double its power consumption from the announced spec to the delivery, yet that hasnt been recognised. I also object that AsicMiner in the past has sold off old stock and perhaps even used systems that were under performers and over power consumers, and yet theyve been classed as shipping on time, when in reality they were simply upgrading their own private mine, and selling off the old boards in new boxes.. and yet that was interpreted as 'can do no wrong' by the asicminer fanboys.