Talk:List of Unofficial World Records
Changing the titles of some of the tables. --Owen 11:36, 17 December 2011 (EST)
Tymon Kolasinski's 4x4 time
The general consensus seems to be that Tymon Kolasinski accidentally executed a 3bld scramble on a 4x4. "L2 R2 D2 U' B2 D2 L2 F2 L2 F2 D R2 L' B' U' B' L2 U2 F2 L2 R2 Rw2 Uw'" is not a scramble that cstimer.net would ever give out for 4x4. Please do not add Tymon's 10.86 as a 4x4 UWR. If you wish to discuss this, please do so here and not in the article. Dancing jules (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
LMFAO who said he used a 3bld scramble, he said he checked it and it was legit. Don't say "the general consensus seems to be", when its just your opinion, im gonna add this time back until you stop.
I have seen the discussion. Again, he literally checked it. It isn't impossible.
Although the creator of cstimer did say it is technically possible tomgive out the scramble, I think removing the column was the best course of action, just like 3x3 single years ago. Galaxy
Should 3x3 UWR be tracked?
In my opinion, no. It's too controversial, like 2x2 single and ao5. There have been 8 sub-2.8 times that have been claimed by various people, most of these almost definitely fake, but me and the majority of people agree that the 2.82 is legit. Just removing it is the best course of action to stop the controversy. Now, I'm not saying the 2.88 is fake, not at all! If there's anyone you can trust, it's probably Max, just like nobody contests Patrick's 2.99: just that there is too much controversy, for the millionth time! For those who are curious, here are those mentioned sub-2.88 times.
Kim Roger Hoyland Larsen 2.82, Etienne Guay 2.82, Sameer Aggarwal 2.78, Vyacheslav Zhuravsky 2.72, Uranium Cuber 2.71, Etienne Guay 2.65, Etienne Guay 2.62, Anrii Simonov 2.59, andreicuber123 2.36
Can we stop accepting UWRs that have no video footage attached?
I think it's fine if the person is trusted, like Max Park for example. But when it's a random person who claims an UWR, for all we know, they could've just made up their time. Of course, we could just trust the person, but I do not believe trusting is enough. There must be verification and some form of evidence (preferably by video) in order for these solves to have validity. Sure, it's not like there are any WCA regulations or guidelines in place for UWRs, but isn't the most important and obvious thing about claiming timed solves is proof that it actually happened? Imagine if you had the power to submit times solves to your WCA profile without proof. This is comparable to what the UWR page is here.
I think a solution to this issue would be to try an approach similar to what cubers.io has been doing for a while. Where moderators (or even community members!) ask someone who wishes to claim an UWR for verification/evidence of their result. Should the person not have any video of the result, they can be asked to record a solve that would be considered as 'close enough' to their UWR to gain their trust. For instance, if a person claims to have a 30 second 4x4 PB single but did not film it, they could just record a 40 second average of 5, for example, and it would be enough for anyone to believe that their 30 second single is legit. This approach can easily be implemented, by making a thread on the forums and allowing only moderators to have permission to edit this page. Only when the UWR is validated it may be added to the page.
Thanks for reading, and I hope someone considers my idea
- Nice idea, but I think it would kinda be a hassle to implement, I'm not a mod so take what I said with a grain of salt. - Just a cuber
- I agree, it's a great idea, but we would need people who are willing to moderate the page all the time, which is definitely a lot of work. If anyone really wants to do this, you could PM pjk about it on the forums (since I think that's he's most active on there) and ask him for permission (mainly admin rights for protecting the page) to do this. - RedstoneTim (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)