[QUOTE=James Heinrich;384592]The current "legacy" code is after I reworked the manual_results page. You need to [url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101106063549/http://www.mersenne.org/manual_result/]go back further than that[/url] (date picked at random).[/QUOTE]

Ah, that explains it. I'm glad to know I wasn't going senile...

[QUOTE=retina;384655]This work fine on my browser:[code]-moz-transform: translate(-5em,0) rotate(-90deg);[/code]More generically just do this:[code]-webkit-transform: translate(-5em,0) rotate(-90deg);
-moz-transform: translate(-5em,0) rotate(-90deg);
-ms-transform: translate(-5em,0) rotate(-90deg);
-o-transform: translate(-5em,0) rotate(-90deg);
transform: translate(-5em,0) rotate(-90deg);[/code][/QUOTE]

If all the columns ended up being the same width it was easier to figure out, but it's also complicated by the fact that the # of columns itself will vary depending on if you're looking at a specific CPU, and if you're logged in or not (logged in users can mark a benchmark as suspect, George can correct it), etc.

It's kind of nice how the PHP code behind that will just add extra columns (or not) to an existing table based on those parameters, but that means they all share one base table definition to start with.

To make it look any better I think it's better to tackle the "too many columns" problem and replace some of those timings with something a little easier to work with and understand. Not sure what, but I've got a few ideas bubbling in my brain.

.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;384702].[/QUOTE]

I'm glad someone checked to make sure it wasn't a stock photo.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;384702].[/QUOTE]

Well now I want to use one of those photos instead. Thanks for the suggestion. :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;384699]To make it look any better I think it's better to tackle the "too many columns" problem and replace some of those timings with something a little easier to work with and understand. Not sure what, but I've got a few ideas bubbling in my brain.[/QUOTE]

I think we can drop the 1024K through 1536K columns. No active LL tests are using those lengths.

[QUOTE=Prime95;384715]I think we can drop the 1024K through 1536K columns. No active LL tests are using those lengths.[/QUOTE]

Just trying that out... it does help de-clutter. I can make that change live. I just added an additional clause to the SQL query to only grab benchmark types above those 3 excluded ones. 3 less columns does make a difference. :)

It's changeable if you look in the source for that page, just need to tweak that "column > whatever" clause I added in 3 spots (all benchmarks, just mine, and specific CPU tables).

That's live now for all to enjoy.

[QUOTE=petrw1;384654]Not working for me...[/QUOTE]

Ah... hmmm... I thought that's how the table sort plugin worked. I better double-check or see if I need to set some option to enable that. I remember trying it out during my testing, so it's there somewhere.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;384724]Ah... hmmm... I thought that's how the table sort plugin worked. I better double-check or see if I need to set some option to enable that. I remember trying it out during my testing, so it's there somewhere.[/QUOTE]

It's working... but of course it only changes if there are duplicates in the first column, and then things in the second selected column would then sort up/down.

It's hard to know it's working without any up/down arrows showing up, which I know are missing still. I added those back in on the test page I'm looking at and I can tell that, for instance, the CPU benchmark report is multi-sorting, but it'll only do something if the first column you select (like speed) has multiples, and then you click another column to then sort by that value as well.

It's hard to tell on that benchmark page because the data tends to be different almost across the board, but you could do this to test:

- sort by CPU model and look for the 3 items: "Intel Core i7-4770K @ 3.50GHz"
- there are 3 because people tested with different clock speeds, so they each have a different average
- hold shift and click on the avg. speed column and it'll sort up/down by that value as well, keeping the cpu model sorted as-is.

The same should apply to pretty much all the other tables. Once I can get the arrows added back to the column headers without messing up the rendering (it renders, then resizes the columns once the theme loads since the arrows add width, which I didn't like) you'll be able to see it better.

Very minor point on Account Summary page
 

[QUOTE=Madpoo;384523]I'm personally a fan of YYYY-MM-DD 24:00[/QUOTE]

Is it just me, or contact dates are still displayed in 12:00 format? (applies to the main page and to the popup when CPUs>1)

[QUOTE=ric;384732]Is it just me, or contact dates are still displayed in 12:00 format? (applies to the main page and to the popup when CPUs>1)[/QUOTE]

I was actually just fixing that (on the accounts stats page).

I'm hunting down any other possible inconsistent date formats, but that means me doing a search for different PHP type date formatting to see what looks weird. I hope to get any more of them standardized soon.

EDIT: found a few more on the account /cpus/ page and the team stats. I think I got 'em all switched to a format like "2014-01-31 23:11" and if it had the timezone before (showing GMT) it should be showing UTC now. That was only in a few spots I think.