Talk:UserBenchmark

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 22 January 2025 by reviewer SafariScribe (talk · contribs).

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from UserBenchmark appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 February 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that UserBenchmark unlocks free testing only if users can shoot down 13 ships?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/UserBenchmark.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 18:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that UserBenchmark unlocks free testing only if users can shoot down 13 ships?

Source: "When there are free slots, users will have to complete a 3D captcha minigame where the goal is to shoot down 13 ships." Matthew Connatser (2024-02-17). Controversial benchmarking website goes behind partial paywall — Userbenchmark now requires a $10 monthly subscription. Tom's Hardware. Retrieved 2025-01-08.

ALT1: ... that before running a free benchmark test on UserBenchmark, users must first prove their skills by shooting down 13 ships? Source: "When there are free slots, users will have to complete a 3D captcha minigame where the goal is to shoot down 13 ships." Matthew Connatser (2024-02-17). Controversial benchmarking website goes behind partial paywall — Userbenchmark now requires a $10 monthly subscription. Tom's Hardware. Retrieved 2025-01-08.
Reviewed:
Comment: If anyone feels the first is not properly sourced, the alt 2,3 are good enough options for me. Alt 2 mentions play a 3D minigame, while alt 3 mentions complete a unique 3D captcha minigame. Either one is fine for me, added two because the second one expicitly mentions captcha, but is slightly on the longer end.

Moved to mainspace by Bunnypranav (talk), Win8x (talk), and The internet is made by people like you (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 07:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

There are two citation needed tags that need to be addressed, User:Bunnypranav. The information presented in the lead should also appear in the body of the article and a source for it should be cited. Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: I have removed the unsourced parts of the tagged lines and expanded on the ones with a source. I have also added the lead sentence to the features section, with a bit of expansion. Hope that helps! Thanks for your review. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is new and well-written, but I do not see the information used for ALT0 in the cited source. Otherwise the sources are cited and they seem to be of high quality. I do find ALT1 more interesting anyway. How about we say that "before you can use UserBenchmark's free benchmark program, you must shoot 13 ships"? It seems punchier. Surtsicna (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually in the editing panel just about to change the hook to be more interesting, when I saw your mention in my email. I'll be right back with a more interesting hook. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: I've replaced the previous hooks with two more versions, are they better and good to go? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about we lose "in a 3D minigame"? Surtsicna (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and now that it has been removed, ALT1 seems like a better option to me, I'll leave it to you though. Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can approve both hooks, but prefer ALT0 because it is more concise. Let's see what the promoter picks. Surtsicna (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on deleted edits

@Desaccointier: re: "What part of the removed content is irrelevant, non-neutral, or unverified, exactly?" @Adakiko: re: "source for non-reliability? wp:Reliable sources/Perennial sources?"

Hi, I noticed you both reverted my edits. Below are my explanations for making them. Kindly let me know what edits we can make to make the article more informative, balanced and inline with Wiki policies. Thanks!

1. This line was removed: "It is known for its controversies for producing biased computer hardware ranking charts which unfairly favour Intel and Nvidia hardware, and disapproves of AMD hardware", as the language is not written from a neutral POV. The subject is not "known for" controversies more than it is "known for" being a hardware benchmarking site with millions of visitors (as pointed out in reference 1: Toms Hardware). There is no reference for the "unfairly" favouring different manufacturers. I believe this emotive language is better left out here in the summary and explained in the controversy section - see later. Your thoughts?

Tom's Hardware article states: For the uninitiated, UserBenchmark (UB) is infamous in the tech landscape for its radical perspectives versus AMD. That paraphrases to "known for". Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. Removed the reference to 3Dmark as it's not relevant. There is no reason to mention 3Dmark here or any of the dozens of alternative benchmarking solutions. Or should all of them be listed? There is already a link to benchmarks (computing) where many of the alternatives are noted.

Sometimes a comparison is useful. Maybe add another? Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3. Removed the word "frequent" from the line: "makes it a frequent source of unreleased hardware leaks". None of the references indicate the frequency of leaks, and after a quick search, I couldn't find any articles more recent than 2022 with regard to hardware leaks on user benchmark, so not that frequent then.

Seems OK to me. Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4. Changed the word from "imposed" to "offered" to be factually accurate and use neutral language in this sentence: "In 2024, UserBenchmark imposed a $10 per year fee to allow usage of the program during periods of high use."

Why? "Offered" sounds like it's a donation. Imposed, maybe In 2024, UserBenchmark required a $10 per year subscription fee to use the program during periods of high use.? Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5. Changed this sentence: "Only a small subset of people can make use of free open testing slots unless they are subscribers." The source refers to "a limited unspecified number of users", but not whether this is a small or large number.

Some people, without subscriptions, may be able to make use of free open testing slots.? Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6. Removed the non-neutral language: "facing backlash". Reworded to be more neutral and accurate.

You removed the whole paragraph and sources. Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7. Removed the non-neutral language: " in which the high-end CPU was called "pointless for gaming"." - but concede that this is a direct quote and may be permissable?

It's a quote. Mentioned in a number of other articles. Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8. Under the controversies section, I had swapped the order of the two paragraphs, one referring to 2025 and the other, 2019, to be in chronological order.

The swap is OK by me. Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

9. Under the controversies section, I removed the emotive language (e.g. "drastically") and added detail about the controversy using the existing sources from an NPOV: "In July 2019, UserBenchmark updated how it calculates the effective speed index on its website's CPU hardware rankings, which resulted in Intel's i9-9900K CPU taking the top rank from AMD's higher core-count Threadripper processors. UserBenchmark received criticism for this in the media, but responded that the effective speed indices are subject to frequent tuning and “are now accurate to around 8% over the entire spectrum of 8500+ CPUs”. Several technology publications have criticised UserBenchmark's reviews of some AMD hardware." I'm open to discussion on how to bring this wording and in line with Wiki policies, please assist.

https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.userbenchmark.com wp:UGC and not RS, BTW, gives UserBenchmark 1.5 out of 5 stars w/ 750+ reviews. Some find the timing of the adjustments and the results very suspicious. I don't think your change make it clear enough. Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10. I originally had changed the wording of "This resulted in backlash on social media, with some hardware enthusiast boards banning links to the userbenchmark website", but I later removed it altogether as the eTeknix source does not appear to be high quality journalism and reads more like a gossip column. Please take a look at the source and let me know your thoughts.

the eteknix article (still live) appears to be posting research, not opinion. Near the end of the article is Well, at the risk of repeating ourselves, again, we don’t care suggesting their articles are under editorial review. There is no discussion on wp:RSP, so nobody has queried or complained. There are at least 50 external links to eteknix Special:Linksearch/*.eteknix .com. eteknix:about does not raise any flags. I don't see a problem. If you wish, inquire at wp:RSN. Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are the bulk of the edits I made. Let's start here and discuss how to move forward. Thx. PeteskiPete (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wp:NPOV is about representing all significant views and then some. Suggested reading. You can request a wp:third opinion, or if more than two editors are involved on this talk page, please make a wp:request for comments. Adakiko (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Desaccointier, Bunnypranav, Coolwriterman12, Multiverse Union, DotJAZ, The internet is made by people like you, Win8x, SafariScribe, and Stephendt: Send annoying ping to recent significant editors - any options on recent changes by PeteskiPete (talk · contribs)? Adakiko (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not a great comment, but Adakiko clearly articulated my view on each of the ~10 points PeteskiPete mentioned, and I agree with their arguments. TBH, some of the changes proposed above are more POV than the current version. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]