"Some mathematical formula" on which it's based is actually a very good comparison of the results of the tied players. It basically means that if you've beaten better players (ie those with more wins themselves), you get a better score.
Congrats on 5/7 though, that's a pretty good result and would normally have got you a trophy.
In the United States, where the main format is swiss system, yes, this is a problem. With so few rounds there are many ties. So players play very attacking risky chess because if you want to win the top prize draws are essentially as bad as losses.
In Europe (at least for the top players anyway) there are more round robins which takes care of this. In that format it's about solidity, and you may win first with 6 draws and 3 wins.
This may be a bit of an exaggeration/stereotype, but in any case swisses are like that. RR and double RR take care of it but the tournaments last a lot longer.
Anyway, online tournaments are just for fun. Doesn't really matter 
"Some mathematical formula" on which it's based is actually a very good comparison of the results of the tied players. It basically means that if you've beaten better players (ie those with more wins themselves), you get a better score.
Congrats on 5/7 though, that's a pretty good result and would normally have got you a trophy.
Wait, this is the point, the other didn't "win" more than me. We were 4 people all with the same 5 points. And honestly on a bullet tournament is also a bit of luck. Since I played against a player 2-300 points more than me, and he was winning, but he made a mistake, and gave me the chance to checkmate.
Watch the snippet
I just played my first bullet tournament (2mins,1sec), and I thought I had a bad result with 5 out of 7, because I just placed 5th out of 20 something players. But then I watched the detailed results, and I saw that 4 people were tied for 2nd place, with my same points, 5!
Watching results of real tournaments, I noticed this happens also to GMs. In one tournament I saw 10 GMs all 1st with the same score.
Now, I believe this is the real death of chess. If I have to play an entire tournament, to discover that the 2nd place is given not based upon the score, but upon some mathematical formula, then why not playing dice?
Because we all score 5. If the tournament was with let's say 100 people, instead of 20 players, we would have had likely 10 people scoring 5 points, and maybe even 2 with the same score based on the math formula.
So my objection is: why do I play a tournament, if then the final result is based on something which is not "chess" related?
And why would someone go into a chess career, when maybe also a big prize must be shared with 10 others?
My proposal is that the number of rounds, for bullet tournaments, must be higher. Because with 9 rounds, instead of 7, and 20 players, there will be more variety in the end results.