Currently, the points we received reflect both (a) validity of our work and (b) the amount of effort we spent in that cube. I sort of wonder : if we receive low score (like 20+, which is quite common to me 
) after finishing a cube with little workload (eg a very short branch with nothing complicated), how do we know whether 1) we are doing everything correctly, but contribution from (b) is little, or 2) we actually made serious mistake and the low score is the result of little contribution from (a)? Perhaps the two score should be present separately to clear things out? Some people suggest we should be able to compare our work with others directly, but I know this may result in negative feedback and create problems. In that case, perhaps we can start with something basic, so that simply referring to the score people can learn from their mistake.
The points you get for spending more time at one cube are limited to 20, if I recall correctly…
Also worth mentioning: The function used is somehow sigmoidal, not linear. I think, I have read something about two minutes for each task should give you maximum points - but maybe that was changed meanwhile.
Oh, if you really screwed up a cube, you can spend as much time as you like - reward will be limited to zero.
I’m pretty sure I actually read about all those information somewhere across the board… But maybe one of the mods has more up-to-date or accurate ones 
Edit: Wow, I wrote a lot but said nothing for sure… amazing
That was a good description nkem. Â Right on the money.
@qwaszxopklnm It is sometimes difficult to suss out where the points are coming from. Â I think at this point we are looking for other ways of scoring rather than making the one that we currently have better. Â As nkem pointed out, there are other discussions of this on the forum. Â Feel free to read up on the others and let us know what you think.