[Guide] Dogie's Comprehensive Manufacturer Trustworthiness Guide [1st Feb 2016]

[bitsalame]

As i said, the "own chips" criteria makes no sense.
There is no point in penalizing for not manufacturing own chips.
It is like penalizing Compaq for not being Intel, it is absolutely unrelated and irrelevant to the evaluation of the trustworthiness of a company.

If the goal of this ranking is to evaluate the trustworthiness of the companies, what really matters is their relationship with the customers, their business ethics and efficiency, and penalizing practices that potentially could harm the shareholders and their customers, example:
Do they deliver what they promise? (Underdeliver, penalize. Overdeliver, extra points)
Do they bait and switch?
Do they deliver and ship orders on time?
Do they ask for preorders? (Not a disqualifying point, but undesirable, it should get penalized)
Did they miss the deadline for preorder delivery? (This should be penalized doubly per day)
Do they honor the warranties or insurances?
Do they refund to their customers?
Are they reachable for support?
Are they reachable in real life? (Telephone, Personal visit, postal mail)
Are their facilities real or are they just paper companies?
Are their identities publicly known?

THAT is relevant.

You should move away from ambiguous criteria that are hard to quantify objectively and/or are irrelevant to evaluate trustworthiness.
The "size" of a company is actually irrelevant. If a small startup deliver what they promise, on time, and they can effectively keep up with demand, there is no point in penalizing them.
Also, unless all the companies are public, you can't really measure up their "size".

If you want to make an objective and fair comparison of these companies, you will have to take an extra effort to think it through. Subjective impressions and arbitrary criteria are useless.
Evaluate by how they perform, not on how it looks.
And evaluate a dish by its taste, not on their cooking techniques.
And what makes restaurants to earn their Michelin stars is one key criteria: CONSISTENCY.
Are they consistent in the quality of service? What's the ratio of happy customers and pissed ones? How often do they piss their customers?

[1715272296]

1715272296

[dogie]

As i said, the "own chips" criteria makes no sense.
There is no point in penalizing for not manufacturing own chips.
It is like penalizing Compaq for not being Intel, it is absolutely unrelated and irrelevant to the evaluation of the trustworthiness of a company.

If the goal of this ranking is to evaluate the trustworthiness of the companies, what really matters is their relationship with the customers, their business ethics and efficiency, and penalizing practices that potentially could harm the shareholders and their customers, example:
Do they deliver what they promise? (Underdeliver, penalize. Overdeliver, extra points)
Do they bait and switch?
Do they deliver and ship orders on time?
Do they ask for preorders? (Not a disqualifying point, but undesirable, it should get penalized)
Did they miss the deadline for preorder delivery? (This should be penalized doubly per day)
Do they honor the warranties or insurances?
Do they refund to their customers?
Are they reachable for support?
Are they reachable in real life? (Telephone, Personal visit, postal mail)
Are their facilities real or are they just paper companies?
Are their identities publicly known?

THAT is relevant.

You should move away from ambiguous criteria that are hard to quantify objectively and/or are irrelevant to evaluate trustworthiness.
The "size" of a company is actually irrelevant. If a small startup deliver what they promise, on time, and they can effectively keep up with demand, there is no point in penalizing them.
Also, unless all the companies are public, you can't really measure up their "size".

I'm not going to repeat myself for the 4th time about size because you haven't bothered to read the other posts before posting. Size - if you want to call it size or consistency or time on the market or whatever - is a required metric to prevent it being gamed by a brand new company which would rock up with a perfect score.

[bitsalame]

As i said, the "own chips" criteria makes no sense.
There is no point in penalizing for not manufacturing own chips.
It is like penalizing Compaq for not being Intel, it is absolutely unrelated and irrelevant to the evaluation of the trustworthiness of a company.

If the goal of this ranking is to evaluate the trustworthiness of the companies, what really matters is their relationship with the customers, their business ethics and efficiency, and penalizing practices that potentially could harm the shareholders and their customers, example:
Do they deliver what they promise? (Underdeliver, penalize. Overdeliver, extra points)
Do they bait and switch?
Do they deliver and ship orders on time?
Do they ask for preorders? (Not a disqualifying point, but undesirable, it should get penalized)
Did they miss the deadline for preorder delivery? (This should be penalized doubly per day)
Do they honor the warranties or insurances?
Do they refund to their customers?
Are they reachable for support?
Are they reachable in real life? (Telephone, Personal visit, postal mail)
Are their facilities real or are they just paper companies?
Are their identities publicly known?

THAT is relevant.

You should move away from ambiguous criteria that are hard to quantify objectively and/or are irrelevant to evaluate trustworthiness.
The "size" of a company is actually irrelevant. If a small startup deliver what they promise, on time, and they can effectively keep up with demand, there is no point in penalizing them.
Also, unless all the companies are public, you can't really measure up their "size".

I'm not going to repeat myself for the 4th time about size because you haven't bothered to read the other posts before posting. Size - if you want to call it size or consistency or time on the market or whatever - is a required metric to prevent it being gamed by a brand new company which would rock up with a perfect score.

A better criteria than "size" is "age".
BTW, you ignored the actual point of the criticism, which is the irrelevance of "own chips"

[dogie]

I still think btcgardens rating is way too low.

Here's how I would rate them:

Also did you forget avalon?

Don't post ratings in this thread, it creates fragments which will never get updated and are confusing.

BTCgarden don't use their own chips, so you can't make that up. They also don't have very minor hardware issues, they have pretty considerable DOA issues which they're refusing to acknowledge or address. My review unit for example, was half dead, and another reviewer's totally dead. Their support didn't attempt to fix it (replied one email from 6) or replace the components.

Don't start on avalon, everyone flames regardless of what I do with that company. At the moment they are excluded because they're not active. SB are the closest you'll get to Avlaon.

[dogie]

These ratings don't make sense.  Case and point, ASICMiner is #1, but no longer ships any miners, only chips.  However, you ding a company like RockMiner with 1/10 on using own chips BECAUSE they use ASICMiner chips, your #1 rated company...  

BTW, ASICMiner should be #1, but why ding other companies who use their chips?
this is flawed.

Because ASICMiner has put down $2-5M in money for those chips, not including the time, expertise and investment. Without differentiating between chip designers and OEMS, I could now start "dogie's woofing rigs", buy $2000 of A1's off the 2nd market and be just as trustworthy from that criteria as a company thats invested 1000x as much as me. $2000 would be a small price to pay for a scammer to run with $100,000.

Rockminer haven't invested the same crazy amounts of money in chips, so they can't be rewarded in that criteria. Don't think of it of a ding, think of it of a buff for people investment 7 figure sums in chip design and manufacture.

[dogie]

As i said, the "own chips" criteria makes no sense.
There is no point in penalizing for not manufacturing own chips.
It is like penalizing Compaq for not being Intel, it is absolutely unrelated and irrelevant to the evaluation of the trustworthiness of a company.

If the goal of this ranking is to evaluate the trustworthiness of the companies, what really matters is their relationship with the customers, their business ethics and efficiency, and penalizing practices that potentially could harm the shareholders and their customers, example:
Do they deliver what they promise? (Underdeliver, penalize. Overdeliver, extra points)
Do they bait and switch?
Do they deliver and ship orders on time?
Do they ask for preorders? (Not a disqualifying point, but undesirable, it should get penalized)
Did they miss the deadline for preorder delivery? (This should be penalized doubly per day)
Do they honor the warranties or insurances?
Do they refund to their customers?
Are they reachable for support?
Are they reachable in real life? (Telephone, Personal visit, postal mail)
Are their facilities real or are they just paper companies?
Are their identities publicly known?

THAT is relevant.

You should move away from ambiguous criteria that are hard to quantify objectively and/or are irrelevant to evaluate trustworthiness.
The "size" of a company is actually irrelevant. If a small startup deliver what they promise, on time, and they can effectively keep up with demand, there is no point in penalizing them.
Also, unless all the companies are public, you can't really measure up their "size".

I'm not going to repeat myself for the 4th time about size because you haven't bothered to read the other posts before posting. Size - if you want to call it size or consistency or time on the market or whatever - is a required metric to prevent it being gamed by a brand new company which would rock up with a perfect score.

A better criteria than "size" is "age".
BTW, you ignored the actual point of the criticism, which is the irrelevance of "own chips"

No I didn't, I just can't reply to 16x posts simultaneously. Age doesn't work because dogie's woofing rigs could sell a few units (resell, rebadge, small run of OEM integration), then sit afk for 12 months while building reputation. Come back all reputable, do a big scam.

You might not like it, but this is required to prevent abuse cases. Abuse cases mean scamming.

[CanaryInTheMine]

These ratings don't make sense.  Case and point, ASICMiner is #1, but no longer ships any miners, only chips.  However, you ding a company like RockMiner with 1/10 on using own chips BECAUSE they use ASICMiner chips, your #1 rated company...  

BTW, ASICMiner should be #1, but why ding other companies who use their chips?
this is flawed.

Because ASICMiner has put down $2-5M in money for those chips, not including the time, expertise and investment. Without differentiating between chip designers and OEMS, I could now start "dogie's woofing rigs", buy $2000 of A1's off the 2nd market and be just as trustworthy from that criteria as a company thats invested 1000x as much as me. $2000 would be a small price to pay for a scammer to run with $100,000.

Rockminer haven't invested the same crazy amounts of money in chips, so they can't be rewarded in that criteria. Don't think of it of a ding, think of it of a buff for people investment 7 figure sums in chip design and manufacture.

This makes no sense either.  Your other criterias should handle your woofing rigs scenario.  If they don't then your system is even more flawed than I thought.
Look, you've been testy before when provided feedback that's designed to help you become better.  Feedback isn't an attack on you, it's provided to help you.
You can do whatever you want, but your manufacturer ratings are not well thought out.

[bitsalame]

These ratings don't make sense.  Case and point, ASICMiner is #1, but no longer ships any miners, only chips.  However, you ding a company like RockMiner with 1/10 on using own chips BECAUSE they use ASICMiner chips, your #1 rated company...  

BTW, ASICMiner should be #1, but why ding other companies who use their chips?
this is flawed.

Because ASICMiner has put down $2-5M in money for those chips, not including the time, expertise and investment. Without differentiating between chip designers and OEMS, I could now start "dogie's woofing rigs", buy $2000 of A1's off the 2nd market and be just as trustworthy from that criteria as a company thats invested 1000x as much as me. $2000 would be a small price to pay for a scammer to run with $100,000.

Rockminer haven't invested the same crazy amounts of money in chips, so they can't be rewarded in that criteria. Don't think of it of a ding, think of it of a buff for people investment 7 figure sums in chip design and manufacture.

Makes no sense. And it seems you don't really understand the business itself.

[dogie]

These ratings don't make sense.  Case and point, ASICMiner is #1, but no longer ships any miners, only chips.  However, you ding a company like RockMiner with 1/10 on using own chips BECAUSE they use ASICMiner chips, your #1 rated company... 

BTW, ASICMiner should be #1, but why ding other companies who use their chips?
this is flawed.

Because ASICMiner has put down $2-5M in money for those chips, not including the time, expertise and investment. Without differentiating between chip designers and OEMS, I could now start "dogie's woofing rigs", buy $2000 of A1's off the 2nd market and be just as trustworthy from that criteria as a company thats invested 1000x as much as me. $2000 would be a small price to pay for a scammer to run with $100,000.

Rockminer haven't invested the same crazy amounts of money in chips, so they can't be rewarded in that criteria. Don't think of it of a ding, think of it of a buff for people investment 7 figure sums in chip design and manufacture.

This makes no sense either.  Your other criterias should handle your woofing rigs scenario.  If they don't then your system is even more flawed than I thought.
Look, you've been testy before when provided feedback that's designed to help you become better.  Feedback isn't an attack on you, it's provided to help you.
You can do whatever you want, but your manufacturer ratings are not well thought out.

The old system was criticised because it relied too much on me deciding exactly how you're asking me to... between the lines... "yes they've delivered but....", "yes its on time but....", "yes 95% of people have no problems but there are a few refund problems"....

This system specifically removes that - I'm not fudging any of it at all. Its an open, numerical system which both the companies and the public can see specifically what is controlling the ratings of, and what those ratings mean.

Feedback isnt feedback when the feedback is "it doesn't work" and ends like that. The solution you're implying but not stating is the old system, which doesn't work for the above reasons. This is the best of what we have. Feel free to propose otherwise.

[dogie]

These ratings don't make sense.  Case and point, ASICMiner is #1, but no longer ships any miners, only chips.  However, you ding a company like RockMiner with 1/10 on using own chips BECAUSE they use ASICMiner chips, your #1 rated company... 

BTW, ASICMiner should be #1, but why ding other companies who use their chips?
this is flawed.

Because ASICMiner has put down $2-5M in money for those chips, not including the time, expertise and investment. Without differentiating between chip designers and OEMS, I could now start "dogie's woofing rigs", buy $2000 of A1's off the 2nd market and be just as trustworthy from that criteria as a company thats invested 1000x as much as me. $2000 would be a small price to pay for a scammer to run with $100,000.

Rockminer haven't invested the same crazy amounts of money in chips, so they can't be rewarded in that criteria. Don't think of it of a ding, think of it of a buff for people investment 7 figure sums in chip design and manufacture.

Makes no sense. And it seems you don't really understand the business itself.

Feel free to actually argue against the content of what I've said, rather than me saying something.

[Searing]

These ratings don't make sense.  Case and point, ASICMiner is #1, but no longer ships any miners, only chips.  However, you ding a company like RockMiner with 1/10 on using own chips BECAUSE they use ASICMiner chips, your #1 rated company... 

BTW, ASICMiner should be #1, but why ding other companies who use their chips?
this is flawed.

Because ASICMiner has put down $2-5M in money for those chips, not including the time, expertise and investment. Without differentiating between chip designers and OEMS, I could now start "dogie's woofing rigs", buy $2000 of A1's off the 2nd market and be just as trustworthy from that criteria as a company thats invested 1000x as much as me. $2000 would be a small price to pay for a scammer to run with $100,000.

Rockminer haven't invested the same crazy amounts of money in chips, so they can't be rewarded in that criteria. Don't think of it of a ding, think of it of a buff for people investment 7 figure sums in chip design and manufacture.

Makes no sense. And it seems you don't really understand the business itself.

Feel free to actually argue against the content of what I've said, rather than me saying something.

I for one and others appreciate your efforts dogie......it is beyond my time or scope of expertise

perhaps add an arrow up or down behind some of the classifications to show where they are now but where they might be trending ie 1/10 ^ v -

but wtf do I know again keep up the good work and I for one appreciate the work/links some of these mnfg i've never heard of so any rating is a plus plus

Searing

[Beastlymac]

These ratings don't make sense.  Case and point, ASICMiner is #1, but no longer ships any miners, only chips.  However, you ding a company like RockMiner with 1/10 on using own chips BECAUSE they use ASICMiner chips, your #1 rated company... 

BTW, ASICMiner should be #1, but why ding other companies who use their chips?
this is flawed.

Because ASICMiner has put down $2-5M in money for those chips, not including the time, expertise and investment. Without differentiating between chip designers and OEMS, I could now start "dogie's woofing rigs", buy $2000 of A1's off the 2nd market and be just as trustworthy from that criteria as a company thats invested 1000x as much as me. $2000 would be a small price to pay for a scammer to run with $100,000.

Rockminer haven't invested the same crazy amounts of money in chips, so they can't be rewarded in that criteria. Don't think of it of a ding, think of it of a buff for people investment 7 figure sums in chip design and manufacture.

Makes no sense. And it seems you don't really understand the business itself.

Feel free to actually argue against the content of what I've said, rather than me saying something.

I for one and others appreciate your efforts dogie......it is beyond my time or scope of expertise

perhaps add an arrow up or down behind some of the classifications to show where they are now but where they might be trending ie 1/10 ^ v -

but wtf do I know again keep up the good work and I for one appreciate the work/links some of these mnfg i've never heard of so any rating is a plus plus

Searing

I think that is a good idea. It will help show how the company is currently going and gives a more up to date rating IMO.

[freedomno1]

Yo Dogie AM news

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg8079787#msg8079787
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg8080017#msg8080017
http://www.bitell.com/t/2026

Not sure if it will affect the ratings but just leaving here

Update

1. Due to the relatively lower interest from individual miners as well as OEM producers, the self mining has re-started from middle of July. We had gain access of cheap electricity and high power capacity. We hope to regain the average hashrate percentage similar to 2013 with this generation of chips.

Oh and I have no regrets about killing the chip arguement above to the moon

[ShadesOfMarble]

I think there is an inherent demand to put everything in numbers. Which camera is better? For most people this is the same question as "Which one has more megapixels?".

A summary like this one is very helpful for new users, but it should not give a false sense of security, which too much "numbers" and "ratings" may do.

It's ok to list things like "uses own chips" etc, but after all it boils down to one question: "Safe to buy from this vendor?". Which would be "Yes" for companies that deliver on time (even when they offer preorders) or "No" for companies which do not deliver on time, do not honor refund requests etc...

Of course you put much work in this, but maybe you consider this for the next version of your guide.

[Bicknellski]

I think there is an inherent demand to put everything in numbers. Which camera is better? For most people this is the same question as "Which one has more megapixels?".

A summary like this one is very helpful for new users, but it should not give a false sense of security, which too much "numbers" and "ratings" may do.

It's ok to list things like "uses own chips" etc, but after all it boils down to one question: "Safe to buy from this vendor?". Which would be "Yes" for companies that deliver on time (even when they offer preorders) or "No" for companies which do not deliver on time, do not honor refund requests etc...

Of course you put much work in this, but maybe you consider this for the next version of your guide.

+1

You can boil this down to a personal recommendation.

I think there are only 4 to 5 companies that have produced and delivered in a reasonable time frame most are Chinese and one is Israeli. All others have had issues and would warrant NOT doing business with them. Agree that these 'numbers' could be misleading and agree with pure deliver nature and potential compensation of slightly off target or late delivery as the real value of measuring any company providing miners.

For me I would only recommend those without customer issues or issues that were completely RESOLVED. Unfortunately this guide doesn't take seriously enough the threats to customers posed by any number of complaint threads. One can just as easily save yourself the hassle by avoiding any company with a checkered past with regards to shipping or customer service failure which remain unresolved. No need to risk your coins on anything that even has the HINT of shady venture given the other companies are shipping at a reasonable clip.

[CanaryInTheMine]

I'm actually not familiar with previous system so I'm not comparing and there's no implication of "fudging" by you.  not sure why you go there...  you're simply getting feedback that the criteria doesn't make sense for a "fit-all" and that there are different ways to more accurately represent/measure what you are trying to achieve with "uses own chips" or the whole "age" concept.
I'm pointing out that the "uses own chips" criteria is problematic and doesn't make sense to apply to companies that will not make their own chips ever.  it's like trying to compare two orange trees from two different orchards and having an apple tree in the mix.  the apple tree will always get 1/10 for it's "orange production."

These ratings don't make sense.  Case and point, ASICMiner is #1, but no longer ships any miners, only chips.  However, you ding a company like RockMiner with 1/10 on using own chips BECAUSE they use ASICMiner chips, your #1 rated company... 

BTW, ASICMiner should be #1, but why ding other companies who use their chips?
this is flawed.

Because ASICMiner has put down $2-5M in money for those chips, not including the time, expertise and investment. Without differentiating between chip designers and OEMS, I could now start "dogie's woofing rigs", buy $2000 of A1's off the 2nd market and be just as trustworthy from that criteria as a company thats invested 1000x as much as me. $2000 would be a small price to pay for a scammer to run with $100,000.

Rockminer haven't invested the same crazy amounts of money in chips, so they can't be rewarded in that criteria. Don't think of it of a ding, think of it of a buff for people investment 7 figure sums in chip design and manufacture.

This makes no sense either.  Your other criterias should handle your woofing rigs scenario.  If they don't then your system is even more flawed than I thought.
Look, you've been testy before when provided feedback that's designed to help you become better.  Feedback isn't an attack on you, it's provided to help you.
You can do whatever you want, but your manufacturer ratings are not well thought out.

The old system was criticised because it relied too much on me deciding exactly how you're asking me to... between the lines... "yes they've delivered but....", "yes its on time but....", "yes 95% of people have no problems but there are a few refund problems"....

This system specifically removes that - I'm not fudging any of it at all. Its an open, numerical system which both the companies and the public can see specifically what is controlling the ratings of, and what those ratings mean.

Feedback isnt feedback when the feedback is "it doesn't work" and ends like that. The solution you're implying but not stating is the old system, which doesn't work for the above reasons. This is the best of what we have. Feel free to propose otherwise.

[jimmothy]

BTCgarden don't use their own chips, so you can't make that up. They also don't have very minor hardware issues, they have pretty considerable DOA issues which they're refusing to acknowledge or address. My review unit for example, was half dead, and another reviewer's totally dead. Their support didn't attempt to fix it (replied one email from 6) or replace the components.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "utilises a mix of own and other companies' chips" but btcgarden had developed/produced their own chip last year.

And even though you two may have had a bad experience it doesn't mean the majority have. I've seen no complaints about btcgarden on this forum or the chinese forums. If they really had an issue with DOA and not attempting to fix it then we would know about it like with CT/HF/BA. Every time I've sent them an email it was either responded to within a few hours or no longer than a day.

Don't start on avalon, everyone flames regardless of what I do with that company. At the moment they are excluded because they're not active. SB are the closest you'll get to Avlaon.

I still think you should include them because they have shipped a ton of miners and their 28nm chip should arrive any day now.

[bitsalame]

I'm actually not familiar with previous system so I'm not comparing and there's no implication of "fudging" by you.  not sure why you go there...  you're simply getting feedback that the criteria doesn't make sense for a "fit-all" and that there are different ways to more accurately represent/measure what you are trying to achieve with "uses own chips" or the whole "age" concept.
I'm pointing out that the "uses own chips" criteria is problematic and doesn't make sense to apply to companies that will not make their own chips ever.  it's like trying to compare two orange trees from two different orchards and having an apple tree in the mix.  the apple tree will always get 1/10 for it's "orange production."

These ratings don't make sense.  Case and point, ASICMiner is #1, but no longer ships any miners, only chips.  However, you ding a company like RockMiner with 1/10 on using own chips BECAUSE they use ASICMiner chips, your #1 rated company...  

BTW, ASICMiner should be #1, but why ding other companies who use their chips?
this is flawed.

Because ASICMiner has put down $2-5M in money for those chips, not including the time, expertise and investment. Without differentiating between chip designers and OEMS, I could now start "dogie's woofing rigs", buy $2000 of A1's off the 2nd market and be just as trustworthy from that criteria as a company thats invested 1000x as much as me. $2000 would be a small price to pay for a scammer to run with $100,000.

Rockminer haven't invested the same crazy amounts of money in chips, so they can't be rewarded in that criteria. Don't think of it of a ding, think of it of a buff for people investment 7 figure sums in chip design and manufacture.

This makes no sense either.  Your other criterias should handle your woofing rigs scenario.  If they don't then your system is even more flawed than I thought.
Look, you've been testy before when provided feedback that's designed to help you become better.  Feedback isn't an attack on you, it's provided to help you.
You can do whatever you want, but your manufacturer ratings are not well thought out.

The old system was criticised because it relied too much on me deciding exactly how you're asking me to... between the lines... "yes they've delivered but....", "yes its on time but....", "yes 95% of people have no problems but there are a few refund problems"....

This system specifically removes that - I'm not fudging any of it at all. Its an open, numerical system which both the companies and the public can see specifically what is controlling the ratings of, and what those ratings mean.

Feedback isnt feedback when the feedback is "it doesn't work" and ends like that. The solution you're implying but not stating is the old system, which doesn't work for the above reasons. This is the best of what we have. Feel free to propose otherwise.

hah, my analogy was clearer: it is like penalizing Dell or Compaq for not producing their own CPUs.

I think Dogie is approaching this in a different way, from the paranoid perspective of how harder would be for a scammer to game his "system".
So basically the more money a company invests (hence the emphasis on "size"), he thinks it is less likely that they will be scammers.
And he also considers that if a company produces own chips, there are serious amount of money involved, therefore it is not likely for scammers to plan a quick con by actually having invested an absurd amount of money producing chips.
But producing or not producing own chips is irrelevant, OEM investments are not negligible. They have to buy the chips, produce the pcbs, assemble them, test them, and ship them.
So the entry barrier is still quite high there. Penalizing for not producing their own chips is ridiculous.

The key criterias that actually matters is: consumer satisfaction, reliability, consistency on their quality, consumer support and breaking promises. And "age" is important especially if they are delivering excellence: consistency over time is extremely hard to keep unless your internal processes are efficient and streamlined.
Amateurs' quality will fluctuate and be erratic (aka. Avalon). Professionals will attempt to apply Six Sigma.

Dogie shouldn't be worrying or even expect to predict on how scammers might manipulate his "metrics", especially if he is hoping to somehow detect beforehand a scamming company.
It is a pointless effort to try to counter-scheme scammers, go straight to the outcome of scams: are they delivering or not? Very simple.

[R4v37]

Individual Criteria

Own Chips?
Companies manufacturing their own chips invest significant time and funds up front, and so have more to lose if things go wrong.
   10/10 = Yes - designing and investing in own chips
   8/10   = Mixed - utilises a mix of own and other companies' chips
   5/10   = Promised - designing and investing in own chips but not yet delivered
   1/10   = No - integrates other companies chips

Delivered Yet?
   10/10 = Yes
   5/10   = Few units only
   1/10   = No

Preorders?
Preorders are a recipe for disaster and puts all the risk on the buyer.
   20/20 = No - does not use preorders
   16/20 = Batch - 'Presells' a batch being manufactured for delivery in the immediate future
   8/20   = Mixed - sells some in hand hardware and some preorders, or utilises split payments
   1/20   = Yes - only sells using preorders
   
On Time?
   10/10 = Yes
   5/10   = Mix
   1/10   = No
   
Hardware Issues?
   10/10 = No
   6/10   = Minor - some issues with performance, reliability or software
   4/10   = N/A - for companies that have not yet delivered hardware.
   1/10   = Major - significant issues that severely impact the performance or reliability of the miners
   
Refund Issues?
   10/10 = No - refunds issued as requested
   5/10   = Some - some orders being ignored or refunds delayed but processing
   1/10   = Yes - refunds significantly delayed or not being processed at all. Includes stall tactics.
   
Communication?
   10/10 = Great - senior management actively engages with customers
   7/10   = Good - customer service staff contactable as required
   4/10   = Okay - some issues or lack of communication with customers
   1/10   = Bad - significant issues with communication
   
Ethics?
All companies start with 10 points, and lose points for various infractions. The key is as follows:   
   F     = Operates own mining farm = -2
   FF   = Operates own large mining farm = -4
   P     = Evidence of premining on preordered equipment = -2
   BFL = BFL'ing = -9
   B    = Bankrupt = -9
   O    = Other   generic unethical behaviour = -5
   
Company Size?
   10/10 = Huge
   7/10   = Large
   4/10   = Medium
   1/10   = Small

sir, maybe you should put colors on the number in the company's score
we tend to read the important part only
so without the color, i found that its really not interesting anymore...

the last one is simpler and better, all informations served inside this small comment box
really... the bigger doesnt mean the better

sorry, just my opinion sir..

[Niggle]

Top work Dogie, hats off to you. I was just wondering why Avalon was not included. They produce their own chips, make a quality product and ship fast from in hand stock. I ordered a 290 module and had it in 6 days and I'm in Australia. Thats impressive.