Long overdue, the changelog has been updated.

[quote]"Quite possible they didn't realize it. I don't know what position the submitted run is but some LB's do not put things under intense scrutiny and just make sure things make sense."

This is called "Bad moderation".[/quote] This is called "moderators are human too and can make mistakes". Things CAN slip by even the most diligent mods. Just bring it to their attention. If they refuse do anything about it, then they might be poor moderators, but that's very much on a case-to-case basis.

https://www.speedrun.com/ahitbb

@AbandonedSatan @Timmiluvs I've known about this a long time as well. It has something to do with the Javascript and debugging it is a pain.

This doesn't belong in The Site forum. Use the Speedrunning forum instead. Thank you.

I can submit it for them.

User rankings updated for 2017-09-10: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yYtam_MOXAI4Xlou4XllQwyaeCBesblQYL76O2ctc3k/edit?usp=sharing

First post will be updated soon.

Because of how the site works, you'll have to change the runs manually I'm afraid. They'll be fixing the problem at some point.

It had a strong condescending tone. It left a really sour taste in my mouth to the point I'd rather just keep getting hit with questions than let that be "official". A rewrite is on the todo list.

Points A and B gets the numbers from the positions of runs on leaderboards, while C and D includes obsolete runs. This gives runners who put a lot of effort into their game, despite the lack of runners, some additional points. It works all-around as well; SMS's Any% WR alone is just under Vallu and TGH.

Points A and C include all leaderboards, while B and D exclude individual levels, as well as full-game leaderboards that are under 5 minutes. This was added mainly because of a certain individual gaming the leaderboards with arbitrary runs, but also had better overall results.

It'll likely be marked by version. Go ahead and run it for now.

Okay, finally on PC.

I have noticed the fastest bottleneck on some games while others are uncapped. This is something that's left me confused since it's varies from computer to computer. The idea is that the uncapped framerate speed is banned. The speed that everyone uses so far has been the one where the in-game timer goes at 4x the speed of real time, so if you need a reference point, there's that.

If you would like to run on MSDOS, you're free to do so, though you would be greatly limited in your functionality.

I'll give a detailed reply when I'm not on my phone, but in short the actual fastest time is an uncapped framerate, which makes it bound to the CPU.

@Shadow_Dog @FurryWulfz Once we have some kind of methodology for this, I can move forward to cleaning it all up. Genres seem straightforward but Developers and Publishers are a bigger mess.

I have them explained in comments if you hover over them. They're the same as the RankWeights in the master list.

Because another ranking system has been getting more attention, despite using a poorer methodology, I made an ultra simplified version of mine. This one is easier to load and share: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lQLd5PoUJl8oAKpmxJc7eh-lMyOCzPC3rKcrOEf4P-k/edit?usp=sharing

Hasn't been added yet. Other things are on the agenda first.

I was just about to mention this. I remember learning about it back when G4 was relevant. To my understanding it would be the longest category.

Confirmed the game time info. There's now an auto-splitter available that records in-game time for PC, though it's still a work-in-progress.

Could we not?