undefined

points

[-]

I'd actually recommend some excellent books on the "philosophy" of data presentation: The first that comes to mind is "the visual display of quantitative information" by Edward Tufte seems to be freely available online, and the other one on my mind is "how charts lie" by Alberto Cairo (which doesn't seem to be freely accessible)

But if it helps, just some "initial gut feel observations" from me:

* It's definitely not possible to find issue with the the _sheer amount_ of results, but there's just far too much for a human to absorb, all presented at once

* Overall text size is quite small, and difficult to read

* The page doesn't make a strong statement of _what_ is under test: the first words are: "modern-fs-benchmark Multi-device CoW filesystems under workloads classic benchmarks skip" -- which defines the webpage in terms of what it is _not_, without stating what benchmarks are actually present.

* The first line of teh page contains run statistics that probably eithre want to b at the bottom, or just don't need to be in the webpage at all: "latest run 2026-09-18 18:50:45 UTC, kernel 7.0.0-1012-azure, 593 runs recorded · 145 trend points shown"

* A significant proportion of the free text is caveats. There's nothing wrong with being transparent about limitations, but they may be a sign that there might be alternative ways to present the data, or that the data may be flawed (depending on the caveat)

* Theres several categories that I think have been invented for the purpose of collation, but I don't think are defined on the page. I think "Overall Core" and "Core I/O" aren't explained, which means by definition it's impossible for a reader to understand the score table.

* And as we're all aware right now, current Claude models are currently struggling to write coherent English. There's several incoherent sentences on the page. It's a Claude issue.

by fenio1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It's not easy to show so many data and make everyone happy about the way it is presented. In fact I'm aiming more at engineers and trying to provide as much info as it is possible to be clear about methodology and everything around it. But raw data is in JSON files so you can always make PR for creating additional view aimed at philosophers and not engineers ;)

by koverstreet13 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Speaking as someone who consumes this, I appreciate how it's laid out. As a developer, we can often see at a glance where the bottleneck is if we have enough data laid out - IOW, data overload for you is me feeling like a kid in a candy store.

Sometimes there are ways to make things easier without dumbing them down, but way too many people conflate the two; I get nervous when non engineers say "I've studied this, it should be easy".

by Farmadupe13 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

ah, yes that's obviously fine; I'm definitely coming fromt he perspective of "bored guy on a Saturday evening who happened to stumble across someone else's wall of charts on HN"

by koverstreet13 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think the Phoronix test suite does pretty well for the end user who wants something easy to digest; the exact choice of benchmarks is sometimes odd but the harness itself is quite good.

At some point I'd like to get our own automated pts runs going, since Michael is not consistent with what hardware he tests on and he hasn't been consistent with getting them out.