it says in the guide that it costs 48gp per item with the demon butler, but i've been having to pay every 10-12 items which comes out to about 750 per item.... What's going on here???

Having to pay ever 10-12 items would mean paying more than twice every time he does a run. I think you are misunderstanding the definition of item.

If you finish the quest 'Love Story' it reduces the cost of butlers by about 25% (7,500 instead of 10,000 per 8 inventories). OK, so assuming each inventory you provide the demon butler contains 24 items:

 

7500/8 = 937.5 gp/inventory

 

937.5/24 = 39.0625 gp/item

 

Then you also have to factor in sawmill costs if you're running logs instead of planks.

yeah but i was doing curry and making about 1-2 each time.

Lol, well that's your problem. He charges by the bank run, not by the item. The 48gp per item assumes you have him bring a full load every time.

Ah, yeah that explains it.

well then why the heck does it say in rune wiki that making curry with a demon butler can be better than frost dragons?

LOL

 

Because rune wiki can be edited by everyone. Even, and sometimes especially, idiots.

yeah but i was doing curry and making about 1-2 each time.

 

Wut?

LOL

 

Because rune wiki can be edited by everyone. Even, and sometimes especially, idiots.

 

Yes, but it's also quality-checked by everyone as well, perhaps not as quickly as say wikipedia, but still.

LOL

 

Because rune wiki can be edited by everyone. Even, and sometimes especially, idiots.

 

Yes, but it's also quality-checked by everyone as well, perhaps not as quickly as say wikipedia, but still.

 

Quality checked by other idiots or as proven here people who assume it is correct.

The widespread disdain for wikis is rather irrational tbh. A few breif instances of misinformation doesn't prove that a whole site cannot be trusted.

 

By no means should a wiki be a person's only source of information, but they are an excellent starting point... Oh, this is getting rather off-topic :P

The widespread disdain for wikis is rather irrational tbh. A few breif instances of misinformation doesn't prove that a whole site cannot be trusted.

 

By no means should a wiki be a person's only source of information, but they are an excellent starting point... Oh, this is getting rather off-topic :P

I don't object to ALL wikis, and a lot of them are really good. The rswiki, though, is notorious for having really horrible suggestions. You see stuff like this all the time.

LOL

 

Because rune wiki can be edited by everyone. Even, and sometimes especially, idiots.

 

Yep, seen some pretty funny stuff on there.

 

Ex; On the brimhaven agility arena page, it had listed the experience rates for handing in tickets in groups. Then said down the bottom that handing in tickets one at a time was highest xp/ticket.

RSwiki said DFS was the best shield for slayer for 3 months.

 

DAT QUALITY!! :thumbup:

Who would even use RS wiki for guides anyway? I only ever use it to quickly (single google search) look up solid facts like level requirements or to compare equipment.

LOL

 

Because rune wiki can be edited by everyone. Even, and sometimes especially, idiots.

 

Yes, but it's also quality-checked by everyone as well, perhaps not as quickly as say wikipedia, but still.

You trust wikipedia?

LOL

 

Because rune wiki can be edited by everyone. Even, and sometimes especially, idiots.

 

Yes, but it's also quality-checked by everyone as well, perhaps not as quickly as say wikipedia, but still.

You trust wikipedia?

 

Like I said, Irrational disdain, people don't realise just how many eyes are checking over the articles at any given time. There's no problem using wikipedia, just don't directly use it as a source, use it as a gateway.

 

The off-topic burns

The first thing you get taught at any high level education:

Wikipedia is not a good source, even as a starting place because 9/10 it is wrong.

Sure its highly checked, all that means is that the common misconceptions get repeatedly posted and that true corrections get edited out again and again as users who think it is wrong re-edit it.

 

And Wikipedia is by far better than rswiki or any others.

Like others said, never trust RSwiki, you can use it, but you should recheck it at other websites (like tip.it...) I have seen many mistakes. Like now they are saying that the new drops that came with the ROW update can only be dropped when wearing a ROW, yeah right...

The first thing you get taught at any high level education:

Wikipedia is not a good source, even as a starting place because 9/10 it is wrong.

Sure its highly checked, all that means is that the common misconceptions get repeatedly posted and that true corrections get edited out again and again as users who think it is wrong re-edit it.

 

And Wikipedia is by far better than rswiki or any others.

 

Wiki is living proof of the old adage: "If you say it often enough, and with enough conviction, sooner or later it will become accepted as "the Truth" ..."

The first thing you get taught at any high level education:

Wikipedia is not a good source, even as a starting place because 9/10 it is wrong.

Sure its highly checked, all that means is that the common misconceptions get repeatedly posted and that true corrections get edited out again and again as users who think it is wrong re-edit it.

 

And Wikipedia is by far better than rswiki or any others.

 

Older academics often have stale opinions on the issue, they don't fully understand what they're talking about.

The first thing you get taught at any high level education:

Wikipedia is not a good source, even as a starting place because 9/10 it is wrong.

Sure its highly checked, all that means is that the common misconceptions get repeatedly posted and that true corrections get edited out again and again as users who think it is wrong re-edit it.

 

And Wikipedia is by far better than rswiki or any others.

 

Older academics often have stale opinions on the issue, they don't fully understand what they're talking about.

 

Older Academics?

Most of my uni lecturers are lates 20s to mid 30s; also that is such a cope out argument Academics know what they are talking about they don't write off a source for no good reason. Heck Stephen Fry is a great example of one who writes off wikipedia as full of bs yet is a forefront figure in pro-tech bunch and often gets to do product tests on the new gadjets before they hit the market.

This thread isn't about wikipedia, we should boith just shut up now, this is mostly a subjective issue.

Use regular Butler. He is a little slower, but makes up for it with a hell of a saving in cost.