The SMB1 leaderboard has a bunch of times that don't include decimals and a bunch that do include decimals. It's possible some are not calculated correctly, and it can cause people to be placed above or under others when it's possible they shouldn't be.

For example, in this screenshot it's entirely possible that Trevor Seguin could have a 5:06.9x, which would actually put him in 19th place, but we don't know that. This could be easily solved by timing the run to the hundredth of a second or so, but kind of stuff is all over the leaderboard. Timing every single run would be just silly; I've thought about just removing decimals from every run beyond a certain time boundary (Like 5:05 and slower, up to subjection) and pretty much have most of the leaderboard look like this

Since it's simple to accurately time the top runs using an emulator, I think the top runs should still be separated by decimals, but for slower runs I don't see decimals being needed since it can put people in the wrong place and it looks a bit cluttered.

even when they're somewhat trivial, I like things to be correct. It's probably just nitpicking and unnecessary to do this, and if you think that, it's understandable - what's your opinion?

Absolutely agreed Nick. Top runs timed to one hundredth of a sec, and the rest of the runs up to 5:05, just normal. As for warpless, I think from 19:25 might be a good example of a time boundary to be done the same aswell. Not only this cleans the leaderboards as it also organizes it to be more easy to read and understand.

I meant 19:15¤

Good idea. 30th place club right here. Removing decimals also better than rounding.

I am in favor of a set system of timing that has us put out to the hundredth of a second, at least

[quote] I am in favor of a set system of timing that has us put out to the hundredth of a second [/quote]

Except I feel like it really doesn't mean anything if they're not timed accurately or if relative times don't have them or are also not accurately timed. Whole seconds will always be accurate, while decimals sometimes will not (depending on who's timing it - by no means am I saying yours is) and will misplace someone's rank, like TMR could have a better or worse 5:09 than you, but you wouldn't know that unless he counted decimals.

Essentially what I'm saying is that I think decimals have no meaning if the compared times don't calculate hundredths. But the whole point of a leaderboard is to compare times. I just feel it would be simpler to have the non-top times not be erroneously separated by decimals. Just my opinion

Oh... So THIS is why there's a sudden loss of decimal places past a certain rank. I thought it was just coincidence that people with slower times didn't care. Kappa