Sign in to follow this  
Sivar

Seeking suggestions from readers for name of new SR awards

Recommended Posts

StorageReview will soon be offering more awards to recognize outstanding disk drives, including an award for appearing on the Leaderboard and a "Drive of the Year" award for either IDE and SCSI or Server and Desktop (or maybe some other category) leaders. Suggestions are requested for how exactly to implement the images for these awards. Many factors will be used in consideration of these awards, but performance will likely be the most significant.

Finding appropriate strings of text for these awards has proven to be surprisingly difficult. I would really appreciate any feedback or ideas from anyone who would like to share them.

One of the reasons for these new awards is that currently there does not exist an official way to recognize really good disk drives. "Safe Buy" has something of an ambiguous meaning in my opinion, and doesn't sound like a very strong recommendation.

Choosing text for the award may seem a trivial matter, but it can't sound cheesy, shouldn't be too long as the images have to be small enough that it doesn't take forever to download, and the awards have to be clear enough to read on tiny, blurry monitors, on web-enabled PDA's, etc. Additionally, it is important that the text communicate exactly what the award means. "Kick ass" or "Five stars," for example, really doesn't mean anything to me.

The award will probably look something like the current "Safe Buy award" here here:

safebuy.gif

The grey tag will probably be horizontal rather than at an angle to reduce aliasing, and the text for the specific award will be below it not unlike the "Safe Buy" text.

Specifics:

The Drive of the Year award will have to show the year (obviously) and will have to indicate what general class of drives it is the leader of--for example, if there were just a single DoTY award, 15K SCSI drives would always win, and excellent IDE drives would never get a shot (with the possible exception of the WD Raptor :).

The Leaderboard award will have to have the word "Leaderboard", will have to have the quarter the drive was on the leaderboard (Q1, Q2, Quarter3, Jan-Mar, or something like that) and the year, and the class of drive from the Leaderboard (15,000RPM SCSI, 5,400 RPM IDE, etc.)

Here are a few ideas...

For Drive of the Year:

[*]2003 DESKTOP

DRIVE OF THE YEAR

[*]2003 IDE

DRIVE OF THE YEAR

[*]2003 DRIVE OF THE YEAR

DESKTOP IDE HARD DRIVES

[*]2003 DRIVE OF THE YEAR

DESKTOP HARD DRIVE

For Leaderboard:

  • LEADERBOARD Q1 2003

15,000RPM SCSI

LEADERBOARD Q2 2002

7,200RPM IDE

LEADERBOARD Q1 2003

15,000RPM IDE

[*]LEADERBOARD

15KRPM SCSI

Q2 2003

[*]LEADERBOARD Q1 2003

FASTEST 7200RPM IDE DRIVE

[*]LEADERBOARD Q1 2003

FASTEST 15000RPM

SCSI HARD DRIVE

[*]LEADERBOARD Q1 2003

FASTEST 15,000RPM

SERVER HARD DRIVE

[*]LEADERBOARD

15,000RPM SCSI

[*]LEADERBOARD

15K RPM Q1 2002

This isn't a poll to choose from the above--those are just a few possibilities.

- I would prefer that no award exceed 2 lines of text, but it looks like three may be required for some awards.

- Each line should be fairly close in width. Photoshop can tweak the text if not too far off.

- This will be an image, so the text doesn't have to be exactly like it would look in a text editor. Eugene thought of having the year (2003) vertical, for example.

- Ideas for ways to format the text, ideas for other parts of the image, where and how to place various chunks of the text and award, or any other ideas are encouraged.

Post them as replies or, if you prefer not to for some reason, PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could a 'drive of the year' award be a dubious idea to begin with in a market this fast? i would think it could prompt many less-informed people to spot it and buy the winner when there are better solutions available in the present tense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
could a 'drive of the year' award be a dubious idea to begin with in a market this fast?  i would think it could prompt many less-informed people to spot it and buy the winner when there are better solutions available in the present tense.
I don't consider the storage market even close to as fast as the market for most other components. There are Of The Year awards for video cards, which are probably the fastest evolving market of all, and there are processor of the year awards as well. DoTY recipients would also have the previous year stamped on the image, which may help.

Still, that is a good point. Many other publications to things that SR would never consider doing, like publishing Sandra results, so publishing various awards doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing.

Would you say that there should be no such award? Do you have suggestions for alternatives? I sort of like "Highly recommended."

You would have to mention the award whose image I have mostly completed. Argh. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very hard to talk about drive performance in the absolute frame of reference necessary to make a "drive of the year" award meaningful. Looking from the perspective of say, 1991, it would impossible to discern what leading performance would look like in the distant future that was 2003. The only way quantify the perfromance realized is by comparision with the contemporary alternatives, and unless the standard of comparison is the best current model (as opposed to a 12 month old one), the comparison means little.

I understand it is somewhat difficult to pass value judgements on products such as these for fear of raising the manufacturer's collective ire. Nonethless the only question, and the highest possible praise for any drive, is whether or not it is the best device available for the money. Trying to create an absolute standard (as well as expecting it to remain unchanged for 12 month periods) and then rating drives against this standard arrays a substantial set of difficulties against a site like SR.

SR reviews a lot of drives, and the users here own them all. We all know which, say 7200rpm IDE, drives are best, the only question we have as possible consumers of a particular drive is how it compares to the reigning champ. Accolades and classifications aside from this crucial attribute invite difficulties not fully compesated by a distinct and useful statement about the value a particular drive delivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SR reviews a lot of drives, and the users here own them all.  We all know which, say 7200rpm IDE, drives are best, the only question we have as possible consumers of a particular drive is how it compares to the reigning champ.  Accolades and classifications aside from this crucial attribute invite difficulties not fully compesated by a distinct and useful statement about the value a particular drive delivers.

For me, this paragraph sums it up. The bolded statement is particularly pertinent. When a new drive is release, we want to know if it's the new 'must have' item in it's class.

I'm sure most readers are smart enough to read the reviews, look at the numbers and decide if it's the right drive for them based on the price, performance in it's intended application, and characteristics such as noise and heat. I for one am so uninterested in any awards given to a drive that I don't even usually notice if one was given.

One of the most useful resources of SR is the database. It's often hard to find reviews that compare performance across hardware generations. With the SR database one can decide if that cheap, one generation old drive (such as the Atlas 10k III) is a better buy than a current generation but slower class drive.

The leaderboard is a good snapshot of the current market, but not always relevant. Knowing which drives used to be on the leaderboard is interesting but not really useful except for historical purposes. More useful would be to know which drives are close enough in performance to the class leader that generally speaking one wouldn't know the difference when using them. So at a quick glance you could see the current leader and which drives are suitable substitutes.

Honestly, I think you are wasting too much time on deciding an appropriate awards system. The idea of the 'Safe Buy' was a good one, in that it said a drive was generally up to current standards without getting too caught up in it all, but unfortunately it's too ambiguous to really be of any use.

My opinion - Keep up the high standard of reviews and data and drop the awards all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would vote for no such reward as long as the leaderboard stays updated. it should be all one needs.

i think it could be more prominently displayed on the front page (with actual links to the drive reviews) for newer viewers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naysayers,

While I agree that a generic award without supporting facts or commentary is effectively meaningless, it does have great value as a marketing tool for SR.

I just typed "kick ass award" into Google, and four of the seven results displayed on my 1280x1024 screen were articles featuring the ubiquitous Maximum PC KICK ASS award, including a .PDF ad for DLink's... something or other, toting a quarter-page sized implementation of said accolade.

On the other hand, ubiquity is a double-edged OLFA -- stamp your logo on every product that comes within arms reach, as Maximum PC aparantly does, and it tends to lose impact. In-crowd technocrats have long ago learned to ignore, if not shudder at the sight of boxed components at Future Shop (Best Buy for you Southerners) emblazoned with the seals of many-a-reviewer's approval. My point is that it can quickly get out of hand, as our kick-ass counterparts have demonstrated admirably.

Then again... only storage devices drives will don the SR badge, limiting the scope of potential damage to SR's great reputation.

...I just realized that the potential for raging digressional debate on this matter far outweighs its usefulness, so I'm gonna cut out before it gets messy.

I predict 100+ posts by Wednesday. Good luck.

Piyono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comments about the DoTY award all sound very logical to me, though the actual decision isn't mine.

Any comments on the leaderboard, or if a DoTY isn't done, a replacement for it (if any)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the DOTY award is not needed and shouldn't be given out for the reasons given above among others. I also agree the current "safe buy" award needs to go, as it is pretty ambiguous and given to almost every drive reviewed making it rather worthless in differentiating products.

The current leaderboard categories are pretty good with a few changes I think should be made. The current ATA 7200RPM, SCSI 10k/15k categories should be changed to "ATA / SCSI 10k / SCSI 15k Performance Leader" which would list the fastest overall drive in each category with nothing else taken into account. With the pending release of the Raptor I think the 7200 should be dropped from ATA as I don't see a point in creating an ATA 10k category for 1 drive. As with the current leaderboard, you can put a footnote for the best performing 7200RPM drive.

With the drop off in 5400RPM releases I think the category should be dropped and replaced with a "Budget Storage Leader" category that should include 5400RPM and current 2MB cache 7200 drives and list the drive best used for mass storage taking into account price/capacity, price/performance, and topend capacity.

I would also recommend a "Useability Leader" for the drive with the best combination of acoustics and heat. I'm not really sure how well that would work and you may want to hold off on that category for a bit since at this point it would basically be the "Seagate Barracuda" award as no one else seems interested in persuing that market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree the DOTY award is not needed and shouldn't be given out for the reasons given above among others.  I also agree the current "safe buy" award needs to go, as it is pretty ambiguous and given to almost every drive reviewed making it rather worthless in differentiating products.
It's worth noting that "Safe Buy" was the artist's idea, not Eugene or Davin's.
With the pending release of the Raptor I think the 7200 should be dropped from ATA as I don't see a point in creating an ATA 10k category for 1 drive.
Ahh, but the Raptor will probably not be the only 10K drive. I wasn't here when the first Cheetah was released. Was it in it's own category for a while? (anybody?). I actually think the Raptor deserves its own category, but it isn't really up to me. :)

I was thinking perhaps the Leaderboard (not necessarily an award, but just SR's Leaderboard) might do well to include a few other categories, as there are so very many questions about them.

One category for quietest IDE drive (there probably aren't enough SCSI people who are terribly concerned with quiet, but it might be a footnote), and a category for both the quietest SCSI and quietest IDE drive. I would guess that these could be auto-generated in a batch process from database values, say, using drives which have been available in the last two years.

With the drop off in 5400RPM releases I think the category should be dropped and replaced with a "Budget Storage Leader"  category that should include 5400RPM and current 2MB cache 7200 drives and list the drive best used for mass storage taking into account price/capacity, price/performance, and topend capacity.
This sounds like a great idea. I can't imagine that many people being terribly concerned with performance when purchasing a 5,400 RPM drive. This feature might be more difficult to implement, considering the webmasters' limited time, since we would have to get daily or real-time pricing info. Anyone know of an easy, free way to do this?
I would also recommend a "Useability Leader" for the drive with the best combination of acoustics and heat.  I'm not really sure how well that would work and you may want to hold off on that category for a bit since at this point it would basically be the "Seagate Barracuda" award as no one else seems interested in persuing that market.
I don't know about this one--many people (most, probably) that care about noise likely aren't very concerned with heat, and probably vice-versa. This information could be garnered from the database, or perhaps from a "Quietest drive" and "Coolest drive" leaderboard entry.

One change I think might make things easier for new users is to allow comparisons of drives to be made without sorting them first by some benchmark. This may already be possible, but I haven't messed with it all that much. It seems non-intuitive to me, and may hide the feature from those who do not know about it. The database comparison tool is so useful, I think it would be a good candidate for a spot in the limelight, maybe a mention in every review or...something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the benchmark numbers could also be intelligently compared to get a fuzzy rating between 2 drives

what would really blow some minds would probably be a priority sort based on common factors:

desktop speed

server speed

heat

noise

price

etc

place them (as desired) in order of concern, and then sort to find 'your' drive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's worth noting that "Safe Buy" was the artist's idea, not Eugene or Davin's.

I'm not singling anyone out on who came up with the idea, just that it needs to go now as it doesn't serve any real useful purpose at this point.

Ahh, but the Raptor will probably not be the only 10K drive.

No doubt, but as far as anyone knows, it won't be anytime soon; even the Raptor still isn't available in retail yet and until it is, it doesn't deserve any spot on the leaderboard let alone its own category. Until there is at least 2 drives competing, having a category for one drive is rather pointless. If you still feel required to invent a category for the Raptor just because you want to, at least invent a category that gives it something to compete against, like SATA Performance Leader or something. Though I would still disagree with that tactic.

I wasn't here when the first Cheetah was released. Was it in it's own category for a while?

The initial Cheetah was released before this site was around, so no. The first SCSI roundup that contained the Cheetah had a competing IBM drive, so there was no category for one drive.

One category for quietest IDE drive (there probably aren't enough SCSI people who are terribly concerned with quiet, but it might be a footnote), and a category for both the quietest SCSI and quietest IDE drive.

I don't see a reason for having a category you can easily look up yourself by looking at one chart. I also think it is a bad idea since the noise measurements SR takes aren't really of any particular use due to how they are taken which is at idle. We all know that the loudest a drive gets is during seeking and other activity. A drive can idle at lower levels than one drive but be noiser during activity. So which drive would be quieter there? To me the drive that is quieter during activity is the quieter drive, not the one that idle's better. Just like the heat measurements, the noise measurements should be worst case scenario.

This feature might be more difficult to implement, considering the webmasters' limited time, since we would have to get daily or real-time pricing info.

Not really, you don't have to go into that much detail, just pick a site or two (Hypermicro and Newegg for ex) and once a month make updates. Having the cheapest site is not the point, since the comparison is a relative one between the drives. If a drive is more expensive at one site, odds are the others will be more expensive there too. Because the prices usually drop gradually across the board for all drives there shouldn't be any dramatic shifts from one drive brand to another between updates.

I don't know about this one--many people (most, probably) that care about noise likely aren't very concerned with heat, and probably vice-versa. This information could be garnered from the database, or perhaps from a "Quietest drive" and "Coolest drive" leaderboard entry.

I don't agree with this. The biggest push for quieter drives is in the HTPC sector which often uses very cramped cases like the Shuttle barebones. In these cases both heat and noise is important. There is also big push now for quiet PC and for a lot of people this means eliminating as many fans in the system as possible which would mean minimal cooling making a cooler drive more important. And as I said above, a noise award on its own wouldn't be very useful as anyone can look at one chart and get the answer to that even if it isn't accurate for the reason I listed. Same goes for a temperature award.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....since the noise measurements SR takes aren't really of any particular use due to how they are taken which is at idle.  We all know that the loudest a drive gets is during seeking and other activity.  A drive can idle at lower levels than one drive but be noiser during activity.  So which drive would be quieter there?  To me the drive that is quieter during activity is the quieter drive, not the one that idle's better.  Just like the heat measurements, the noise measurements should be worst case scenario.

Most people are more concerned with the idle noise level. This is due to many people running their systems 24x7 and wishing to have a quiet room in which to sleep! During the day there's all kinds of background noise (either the world's activity or your own music, tv, etc) to block this out. Much of the time this noise will even block out most of the seek noise.

Having said that, I think the seek noise level is definitely a useful piece of information. Obviously some people ARE interested in it. I'd at least like to know that a drive is not excessively loud during seeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....since the noise measurements SR takes aren't really of any particular use due to how they are taken which is at idle.  We all know that the loudest a drive gets is during seeking and other activity.  A drive can idle at lower levels than one drive but be noiser during activity.  So which drive would be quieter there?  To me the drive that is quieter during activity is the quieter drive, not the one that idle's better.  Just like the heat measurements, the noise measurements should be worst case scenario.

Most people are more concerned with the idle noise level. This is due to many people running their systems 24x7 and wishing to have a quiet room in which to sleep! During the day there's all kinds of background noise (either the world's activity or your own music, tv, etc) to block this out. Much of the time this noise will even block out most of the seek noise.

Having said that, I think the seek noise level is definitely a useful piece of information. Obviously some people ARE interested in it. I'd at least like to know that a drive is not excessively loud during seeks.

With the majority of ATA drives today, idle noise is not an issue which is why I don't think it is important to monitor anymore. I'll pull this quote from the DM+9 review:

"Note that even the 68 GB/platter drive's overall noise profile is less than 45 dB/A @ 0.7 inches, a mark that is emerging as a cutoff for "silent" drives."

Looking at SR's chart, eliminating any duplicates, there are 15 drives that meet this criteria making it a rather nonexclusive club. It should also be noted that SR almost always tests the largest capacity of each drive, so if you chose a lower platter count even more drives would probably meet this noise floor. It should also be noted that most people don't run their drives outside their case in an isolated enviroment which is how SR takes their measurement. If your drive makes a noticable whine today it's the exception not the rule and is probably defective and should be sent back for a replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most people are more concerned with the idle noise level.  This is due to many people running their systems 24x7 and wishing to have a quiet room in which to sleep!  During the day there's all kinds of background noise (either the world's activity or your own music, tv, etc) to block this out.  Much of the time this noise will even block out most of the seek noise.

Having said that, I think the seek noise level is definitely a useful piece of information.  Obviously some people ARE interested in it.  I'd at least like to know that a drive is not excessively loud during seeks.

It is no doubt nice to know how loud a drive is, but unfortunately you will not be using the review unit in your computer. Unlke performance, which is remarkably consistant from unit to unit, noise varies all over the map. It certainly is nice when a review notes the acoustic characteristics of the review sample, but this means nothing to the particular unit you end up with.

Strangely enough, there simply is no pattern to the noise issue. Take WD for instance. Most SE series drives are basically silent in both spin and seek noise, but roughly 20% of the units you encounter are noisy. Some have elevated spin noise, but most have substantially (as in an order of magnitude) greater seek noise than the good examples. People reviewing a loud example (which hardly ever happens) would rate it a crude, loud device, while a reviewer of a better example would call it virtually silent. Neither is the exact truth, and neither conclusion guarantees you anything about the realized noise performance of the particular example you end up with.

This characteristic knows not who made the drive. Although some drive makers' products tend to be quieter than the next, it is simply a trend. Depressing numbers of all makes and models of drives end up being noisy, even given proper handling. Buying 20 packs of drives in the manufacture's original, unopened, package decreases this tendancy, but even so you cannot guarantee each and every example will not have an annoying spin whine or elevated noise output during seeks. It simply takes a bit of luck to get a quiet drive, and this outcome cannot be predicted by the reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about something like a "Golden Platter" award, and Silver Platter, etc. for DoTY? Hmm...perhaps not professional enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see:

1. Editor's Choice Award

2. Reader's Choice Award

There should be a link that tells people what the drive won the award for.

Example 1

If the Seagate Cuda IV wins the Reader's Choice Award, it should show the SR Reader's Choice Award logo, which, if you click on it, should take you to a short statement that says why the drive received the award, and what its recommended application should be:

StorageReview.com's readers have awarded the Seagate Barracuda ATA IV drive a Reader's Choice Award for its ground-breaking low noise levels by using FDB motors in all its models. Who should use it: those who value silent drive operation.

This would also provide ready-to-use "sound bytes" for use in manufacturers' press releases, resulting in free publicity for SR.

Example 2

WD Raptor wins an Editor's Choice Award; Eugene praises it as such:

StorageReview.com's editors have awarded the WD Raptor drive an Editor's Choice Award for its ground-breaking performance levels in desktop applications. Who should use it: those who value maximum performance on the desktop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the Reader's Choice Award, it should be determined from a poll for that specific drive in which members rate the drive and leave a comment. Those who actually own the drive and enter it into the drive reliability database should be given twice the weight of voters who don't actually own the drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about various titles for each class:

"Budget Brick" --Best drive for people w/ a limited budget, ie 80GB 7200RPM IDE

"Hot Rod" --Fastest Drive, money no object. Might have an IDE and SCSI class.

"Workhorse" --Most reliable, with potential uses taken into effect. A 10,000RPM SCSI is most likely to get worked alot harder than a 5400RPM IDE

"Ironman" --Best all around drive when everything is taken into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene

A couple notes:

1) These elevated awards are being considered because of complaints that the only real one benig used, that ubiquitous Safe Buy, doesn't do enough to distinguish between drives.

2) The DotY would not necessarily be the fastest unit that we've reviewed as of Nov 30, Dec 31, or whatever. Rather, it would go to the drive that we felt made the biggest stride in improvements within the calendar year. For example, we were first considering the award late 2001. Though the WD1200JB was the king of the hill by Dec 31st, the award would have gone to the WD1000JB since it was the drive that advanced IDE buffer sizes to 8 megs.

Thanks for all the input,

Eugene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a few posters have mentioned, what seems most important is a drives performance relative to the best.

For example, a WD 2000JB is king of the hill in the Office Drivemark (for PATA Drives), but the IBM 180GXP is right on it's tail. The High-end drivemark shows several drives at the top.

Taking this into consideration, wouldn't a "Top 10" in each category make more sense? Or maybe just a "Top 3"?

I do applaude dividing the categories by use instead of interface/speed, but certain caps would need to be set. The "Best Desktop Drives" shouldn't be the Atlas 15K, Cheetah 15.3, and Raptor. Limiting certian categories to certian interfaces might be the way to go, or maybe a $/MB celieng for certin categories?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A couple notes:

1) These elevated awards are being considered because of complaints that the only real one benig used, that ubiquitous Safe Buy, doesn't do enough to distinguish between drives.

Hmm, one would think the text of the review would be necessary to do that. Perhaps a one-size-fits all standardization of drive ratings doesn't do justice to the complexity of disk drive properties. People often pine for a rule of thumb simplicity in situations that are not well characterized by such.

2) The DotY would not necessarily be the fastest unit that we've reviewed as of Nov 30, Dec 31, or whatever. Rather, it would go to the drive that we felt made the biggest stride in improvements within the calendar year. For example, we were first considering the award late 2001. Though the WD1200JB was the king of the hill by Dec 31st, the award would have gone to the WD1000JB since it was the drive that advanced IDE buffer sizes to 8 megs.

Thanks for all the input,

Eugene

There are few other contexts in which to define improvements except performance. Even noise and heat characteristics are performance metrics of their own type. But I guess you are referring to application performance when you say "performance".

Even so, your example points to the centrality of speed in regards to storage devices. Nobody would have cared 2 bits about the 8MB buffer technology if it did not translate into speed. As a matter of fact, WD would have been roundly ridiculed around these and many other parts if it didn't.

One would need to be careful with an award that doesn't revolve around speed. As soon as you make a particular drive drive of the year because of the manufacturing innovations it employs, its cost, or its capacity there will be a slew of complaints that sound like "I bought your drive of the year, and it is a dog!" should it not also be the speed leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with performance Awards is that they become obsolete almost instantly.

If as you said the WD1000JB would have been given the DoTY award at a time when it wasn’t the fastest in its class, what value does the award have? For those of us fortunate enough to have discovered SR, it would be meaningless and infuriating, (I can see the “how the hell did that piece of antiquated garbage get the title” posts already). For those poor benighted souls whose ignorance of SR means they have not yet

learned to ignore, if not shudder at the sight of boxed components at Future Shop (Best Buy for you Southerners) emblazoned with the seals of many-a-reviewer's approval.
the award may well lead to their discovery of the site, but if they do so having bought the award winning disk only to find that the Western Seetor XYZ 007 ultra doo dah trounces their pride and joy/brand new toy, Well that’s hardly the welcome that, I feel sure, you would wish to extend.

As has been pointed out already, what we want to know about a prospective drive is how it compares to the current champ, for that purpose the database and leaderboard are more useful than any award.

Having said all that, an award for advancing the state of the art, e.g. the first use of FDB bearings or 10k rpm platter, is a good idea. It is precisely because this award is not about performance per se that it has lasting value. Any time a manufacturer raises the bar, you’d give them an award.

As far as the leaderboard award goes it should be given annually to the manufacturer whose drives have spent the most time on top of the board for that year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this