WHO CARES how fluffy the fluff is.

IT DOES NOT MATTER

You guys have been discussing credit for 2 days now. Enough is ENOUGH!!!!!!

PLEASE stop. Before you make those of us who are not here for the credit pull our hair out!

Pretty please?

With pink sugar icing on top?!

---

how fluffy the fluff

Fluffier than the fluffiest fluff in Fluffland

"I have a cunning plan ....."

Why not go with the system of measuring credit done based on cpu and performance as planned, but instead of lowering scores, set the benchmarks up to be equal to what the optimized clients do now.

Great idea and one I suggested in the deleted thread but it got buried amongst the bickering. Its simple, keeps the big producers scoring their big points and allows the new, fair credit system to be adopted without anyone losing anything.

Yeah, I'm not sure why people keep going off on other tangents in this thread, when this is the only thing in here that people should be discussing. Its just a modification to the staff's current plan to equal things out that will give new people a chance to catch up to the top dogs who got a monsterous start.

---

Why not go with the system of measuring credit done based on cpu and performance as planned, but instead of lowering scores, set the benchmarks up to be equal to what the optimized clients do now.

Great idea and one I suggested in the deleted thread but it got buried amongst the bickering. Its simple, keeps the big producers scoring their big points and allows the new, fair credit system to be adopted without anyone losing anything.

Yeah, I'm not sure why people keep going off on other tangents in this thread, when this is the only thing in here that people should be discussing. Its just a modification to the staff's current plan to equal things out that will give new people a chance to catch up to the top dogs who got a monsterous start.

What I posted in the red quoted section was meant to be a step in thta direction . But the "B"word was used again and hell broke over.

I dont have time to read every message everywhere, but I havn't seen this recommended yet. Why not go with the system of measuring credit done based on cpu and performance as planned, but instead of lowering scores, set the benchmarks up to be equal to what the optimized clients do now.

As far as I know, it was never against the rules to be using an optimized client, so instead of punishing the people who have, instead use those levels to set the standard of what a WU is worth, and take the data back to february to RAISE everyone up to an equal level, instead of lowering everyone to an equal level.

The only problem left here is that credits will be worth more then other boinc projects, but this is an independant project that can measure its work however it wants. Statistic sites will just have to skew results as they see fit.

I hope this makes sense, and really wouldn't piss people off or have issues with a second data column or separate scoring.


Edit - I've read that credits wont be backdated whatsoever, but this idea could still apply towards future credits. Multiproject parity isn't as important as equality within a project.

This solution bears directly on the cross BOINC comparison issue. The credit per for a given computer should be the same no matter which BOINC project is being worked on.

---

BOINC WIKI

WHO CARES how fluffy the fluff is.

IT DOES NOT MATTER

You guys have been discussing credit for 2 days now. Enough is ENOUGH!!!!!!

PLEASE stop. Before you make those of us who are not here for the credit pull our hair out!

Pretty please?

With pink sugar icing on top?!

Well, you did step into the number crunching forum. I personally dont care that much, but I am mostly into DC for the stats, so it is an issue for me. I personally dont see how people care about all Boinc projects being equal. Before boinc, any project had whatever the heck scoring system they wanted, and it didn't matter. As long as it was equal.

---

This solution bears directly on the cross BOINC comparison issue. The credit per for a given computer should be the same no matter which BOINC project is being worked on.

Cross Boinc Comparison on one side vs Intra Project Fairness on the other.

Sorry John: Intra Project Fairness wins in my book all the time.

The credit per for a given computer should be the same no matter which BOINC project is being worked on.

But they are`nt are they ?

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

The credit per for a given computer should be the same no matter which BOINC project is being worked on.

But they are`nt are they ?

With the exception of Rosetta and QMC they are more or less.

The credit per for a given computer should be the same no matter which BOINC project is being worked on.

That just sounds like the opinion of someone who has only done Boinc DC projects. There are plenty of other worthy projects out there that run independently of Boinc. Sure the stats sorta look pretty when you put them all together, but other then that, theres no reason. People write formulas all the time to compare cross project rankings for massive amounts of projects.

---

The credit per for a given computer should be the same no matter which BOINC project is being worked on.

But they are`nt are they ?

With the exception of Rosetta and QMC they are more or less.

So let them be . Dont try to impose your world view on all.

The credit per for a given computer should be the same no matter which BOINC project is being worked on.

But they are`nt are they ?

With the exception of Rosetta and QMC they are more or less.

So let them be . Dont try to impose your world view on all.

Same goes for you.

Edit:
BTW dedication:
A Ralph account should get a bonus as well, as this is helping to develop the project, not only crunch away.

With the exception of Rosetta and QMC they are more or less

More or less ?

I`m at Boinc WCG taint the same by a long chalk.

Here I was averaging 1800-2000 points a day for the last fortnight.

At WCG in BOINC points, the last three days ( four in reality)

925, 360, 478

The first one is larger due to the day befores crunching but missing the one update that day.

Same machines, same times etc.

Machines

Pentium D930 dual (OC`ed 3300)
AMD 939 3000+ (OC`ed 3200)
AMD 939 3000+ (OC`ed 3200)
AMD 754 3100+ standard cos of flamin Vista.

16 hours a day each approx.

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

The credit per for a given computer should be the same no matter which BOINC project is being worked on.

But they are`nt are they ?

With the exception of Rosetta and QMC they are more or less.

So let them be . Dont try to impose your world view on all.

Same goes for you.

Edit:
BTW dedication:
A Ralph account should get a bonus as well, as this is helping to develop the project, not only crunch away.

Agreed a Ralph account must be rewarded.

The credit per for a given computer should be the same no matter which BOINC project is being worked on.

That just sounds like the opinion of someone who has only done Boinc DC projects. There are plenty of other worthy projects out there that run independently of Boinc. Sure the stats sorta look pretty when you put them all together, but other then that, theres no reason. People write formulas all the time to compare cross project rankings for massive amounts of projects.

You have hit the crux of the matter. There is a bias that is clearly shown by those that propose the "Cross Boinc Comparison": That only Boinc Based projects are worthwhile projects.

Guess that makes me a weekend cruncher. I flit from one project to the other......

Perhaps I should discard all projects except one and install the very best optimized thingy I can find.

Hey, better still; why not go out and buy a PC for each project I want to be in.

Good idea, why stop at one computer - buy a couple for each project - or just buy 1 and dedicate it to the project. Myself, I have over 50 machines - DEDICATED to crunching, that is all they do. Many of them are old, but many of them are new - During the past 6 months I have purchased 23 Pent D, 920-950's all dedicated just to crunching.
And yes, you can tell my my stats that I "flit" from one project to another in an effort to keep all projects equally supported. Right now I have moved away from Rosetta to SIMAP, and possibly E@H next to get some support over there.

---

SETI.USA

Guess that makes me a weekend cruncher. I flit from one project to the other......

Perhaps I should discard all projects except one and install the very best optimized thingy I can find.

Hey, better still; why not go out and buy a PC for each project I want to be in.

Good idea, why stop at one computer - buy a couple for each project - or just buy 1 and dedicate it to the project. Myself, I have over 50 machines - DEDICATED to crunching, that is all they do. Many of them are old, but many of them are new - During the past 6 months I have purchased 23 Pent D, 920-950's all dedicated just to crunching.
And yes, you can tell my my stats that I "flit" from one project to another in an effort to keep all projects equally supported. Right now I have moved away from Rosetta to SIMAP, and possibly E@H next to get some support over there.

50 putters ..... a dream .....
We discuss all day long how to help science, but we help first the power supplier ;-)

This solution bears directly on the cross BOINC comparison issue. The credit per for a given computer should be the same no matter which BOINC project is being worked on.

Cross Boinc Comparison on one side vs Intra Project Fairness on the other.

Sorry John: Intra Project Fairness wins in my book all the time.

They can both be accomplished at the same time. There is nothing in intra project fairness that indicates that cross project fairness be thrown out the window. Intra project means (to me at least) that the same amount of work for the project earns the same amount of credit no matter what machine it was run on. Cross project fairness just takes the same principle across the BOINC projects.

To those that say that all sorts of other projects that do not run on BOINC have different credits and methods of granting credit. This is a true statement, and has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. Non BOINC projects are not part of the discussion at all.

---

BOINC WIKI

John did you read my post at all ? WCG through Boinc ?

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

John did you read my post at all ? WCG through Boinc ?

Yes, and in WCG as in most BOINC projects, credit is not granted immediately. Instead credit is granted when a quorum is reached, so there is some variation in how much credit is granted each day. If you mean the amount of credit granted there vs the amount granted here, I have not looked to see if you are using "optimized" clients - and I am not going to look at any specific persons computers here - mostly so that my statements are not about any particular user or group.

---

BOINC WIKI