Honestly, my stance on the whole thing is that I want whatever would help the project. I'll admit that I like the new system, because it shows how much I've actually contributed (I am exclusively a Linux/Mac guy, at home, so...). There are people who want backdating, there are people who want re-zeroing, and there are people who want things left the way they are. The more of these people we can make happy, as I see it, the better.

I know that the top three wouldn't change, because I know that you guys (in all three teams) have done an amazing job in terms of production, no matter how you measure it. I don't think there's anyone here who would disagree. It's the people that went in and edited their client files that I have an issue with. Many of these didn't put in the same kind of effort towards helping the research that you guys did. These people are my reason for wanting either backdating or re-zeroing (but only in an external, "unofficial" manner).

---

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to."
Leela (From the Mac game "Marathon", released 1995)

No just site search "backdating"...

As far as the project admin goes " There will be NO backdating" nothing will change save that meteor that`s aimed right for us...;-)

If people want to talk hypothetically it is their right to do so, it`s a two way street.

Man: Are you telling me that the search buttong actually works and that if people have used it , they would have known what the official position of the developers and thus of the project is ?

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

Sure - it works fine.

Try it. Very useful too. (nudge nudge, wink wink, yanno what I mean?)

---

Nemesis n. A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent.

Author Message
David Kim
Forum moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Joined: Jul 1, 2005
Posts: 389
ID: 14
Credit: 137,576
RAC: 244
Message 24821 - Posted 25 Aug 2006 6:17:37 UTC
THERE WILL BE NO BACKDATING. THE INFORMATION TO DO SO NO LONGER EXISTS AND EVEN IF IT DID, IT WOULD BE INACCURATE BECAUSE OF HOST MERGING AND LOST DATA DUE TO SERVER ISSUES.

ID: 24821 | Rating: 0 | rate: / - [Reply to this post]

compare Davids' post above to this one from the Ralph board

17) Message boards : : Current tests : New crediting system
Posted 35 days ago by dekim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't sway myself from thinking that we have the opportunity to make the credit system fairly accurate based entirely on work done. I'm fairly sure everyone agrees credit should be based on work done. We have the opportunity to back date this to make the credit system consistent and fair throughout. If you've crunched more than me, you'll have more credit than me. If not, you won't. We know that's not the case at the moment, and I don't see how anyone can logically be against that.

Precisely, very well said.

Ditto, very well said!

HERE IS THE CURRENT PLAN FOR ROSETTA@HOME

FIRST NOTE: The old system will still be in place and the exported stats will still be from the old system for now. We are just going to include new columns on the leader board lists for the new work based credits. This way people can compare the two, and there will finally be a ranking based on actual work.

For the work based columns, I will determine the actual work done from our archives which dates back to about February. Credit before February will be from the old system. So your total credit will include claimed credit before February plus your work based credit.

The hope is to eventually phase out the old system.

Oh my newly refound friend Tony:

RALPH is another project at least according to BOINC. So the policy stated there could be considered a statement of intention or a probable statement.
The rules for Rosetta are published here..at ROSETTA. This is the official Rosetta Board. This is the Official Rosetta Page. So what it said here holds.

Or are you sating that neither Baker, Kim or Ethan really meant what they said here? I dont think so


Aside : Credits at Ralph can be erased at anytime, people that sign up there are warbed of that. Not so here.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

Sure - it works fine.

Try it. Very useful too. (nudge nudge, wink wink, yanno what I mean?)

So if it works, why aren't the moderators that claim they are enforcing the Projects policies regarding backdating among other things and that is what they said when they deleted at will and with glee during the first days of the backdating tempest , enforcing what can be easily found using the search function?

Man I don't want to think they are taking sides against the stated policy and thus they are allowing the new posts in favor of backdating to stand? The thought of partisan and not cosnsistent moderators will crush me.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

Oh my newly refound friend Tony:

RALPH is another project at least according to BOINC. So the policy stated there could be cosnsidered a statement of intention or a probable statement.
The rules for Rosetta are published here..at ROSETTA. This is the official Rosetta Board. This is the Official Rosetta Page. So what it said here holds.

Or are you sating that neither Baker, Kim or Ethan really meant what they said here? I dont think so


Aside : Credits at Ralph can be erased at anytime, people that sign up there are warbed of that. Not so here.

I'm point out a disparity, one which I pointed out earlier in this thread in this post. First David Kim says "we have the data back to about Feb", then "the data doesn't exist". Or words to that effect (see quoted posts). Which is it? If his first post is true, then what happened to the data to cause the 2nd to also be true?

Oh my newly refound friend Tony:

RALPH is another project at least according to BOINC. So the policy stated there could be cosnsidered a statement of intention or a probable statement.
The rules for Rosetta are published here..at ROSETTA. This is the official Rosetta Board. This is the Official Rosetta Page. So what it said here holds.

Or are you sating that neither Baker, Kim or Ethan really meant what they said here? I dont think so


Aside : Credits at Ralph can be erased at anytime, people that sign up there are warbed of that. Not so here.

I'm point out a disparity, one which I pointed out earlier in this thread in this post. First David Kim says "we have the data back to about Feb", then "the data doesn't exist". Or words to that effect (see quoted posts). Which is it? If his first post is true, then what happened to the data to cause the 2nd to also be true?

That my friend you will have to ask David Kim.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

The post on Ralph was made before the Rosetta one, it seem`s there was a technical or other difficulty in making the proposed Ralph one a reality. Therefore the updated Rosetta one was implemented.

This was the fault of no one here, I believe Tony is merely stating what was originally promised and the fact that the Devs went back on that for whatever reason. Something I think a lot of sides will agree on, the...er..bad(?)....management.

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

The post on Ralph was made before the Rosetta one, it seem`s there was a technical or other difficulty in making the proposed Ralph one a reality. Therefore the updated Rosetta one was implemented.

This was the fault of no one here, I believe Tony is merely stating what was originally promised and the fact that the Devs went back on that for whatever reason. Something I think a lot of sides will agree on, the...er..bad(?)....management.

They also said that they can't backdate due to the hosts merging.

The post on Ralph was made before the Rosetta one, it seem`s there was a technical or other difficulty in making the proposed Ralph one a reality. Therefore the updated Rosetta one was implemented.

This was the fault of no one here, I believe Tony is merely stating what was originally promised and the fact that the Devs went back on that for whatever reason. Something I think a lot of sides will agree on, the...er..bad(?)....management.

They also said that they can't backdate due to the hosts merging.

huh? I must have missed that one. Got a link?

The post on Ralph was made before the Rosetta one, it seem`s there was a technical or other difficulty in making the proposed Ralph one a reality. Therefore the updated Rosetta one was implemented.

This was the fault of no one here, I believe Tony is merely stating what was originally promised and the fact that the Devs went back on that for whatever reason. Something I think a lot of sides will agree on, the...er..bad(?)....management.

They also said that they can't backdate due to the hosts merging.

huh? I must have missed that one. Got a link?

mmmmhhhh.... I'll try .....
[edit] It was a post of D. Kim where he wrotes 'in upper case' that there will be no backdating because of the missing data and even of that there's the problem of hosts merging.

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2153

David Kims at the top

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

While I was closing all these browser windows I also saw the following from Dekim at Ralph. It appears to the be post immediated before the one I posted:

18) Message boards : : Current tests : New crediting system
Posted 35 days ago by dekim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm extracting the archived data and will see what I can do. What do other users think about trying to backdate the credits using the new work based system?

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2153

David Kims at the top

Thank you :-)

The post on Ralph was made before the Rosetta one, it seem`s there was a technical or other difficulty in making the proposed Ralph one a reality. Therefore the updated Rosetta one was implemented.

This was the fault of no one here, I believe Tony is merely stating what was originally promised and the fact that the Devs went back on that for whatever reason. Something I think a lot of sides will agree on, the...er..bad(?)....management.

Lets be fair to David Kim here .

David Kim spoke about plans. The Message at RALPH predated Rosetta . So It can be argued that the developers at Baker lab, tested their plans and found the necessity to change them and implement and updated one. That is good management, specially if what they found was that what they had planned did not work as well as they though. So please lets not ascribe bad intentions to David Kim.

I can vouch for the huge size of the archived work units files . One day/work unit almost froze my ISP and Sloth and I had to use an external source to save the data I was using at that time.

So I can add, If you think you can archive the credit files with ease to use them, think again.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2153

David Kims at the top

Thanks carl, interesting stuff isn't it??? Did the white house fire up the shredders again? LOL

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2153

David Kims at the top

Thanks carl, interesting stuff isn't it??? Did the white house fire up the shredders again? LOL

Oh No Tony : You have gone o the Dark Side again!!!! Since I dont have my laser sword arround , I may have to slap you with a wet trout. LOL LOL LOL

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2153

David Kims at the top

Thanks carl, interesting stuff isn't it??? Did the white house fire up the shredders again? LOL

Oh No Tony : You have gone o the Dark Side again!!!! Since I dont have my laser sword arround , I may have to slap you with a wet trout. LOL LOL LOL

Don't worry Jose, I was talking the "Clinton whitehouse", perhaps Hillary will find the lost data on the end table after months of it being Subpoenaed. LOL

P.S Dekims first post was dated 15 Aug 23:35:22 UTC, and the second was nearly a day later at 16 Aug 18:04:04, so to me it looks like he "extracted" the data, and found it useable, because a day later he had a plan to use the data, then 9 days later the data was GONE. LOL

More likely stuck to a secretary`s dress <whistle> Pass me that Cigar...

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

It is unethical to change the rules ex post facto. In fact, it is illegal to makes such laws in the US.

Wrong! The Court and the Legislature can do just about as they please as long as it's constitutional. I'd like you to quote the constitutional requirement that you appear to believe applies.

In California (a couple of years ago) a law was passed that required smog tests in perpetuity for all vehicles manufactured in 1976 and later. Previously the law had been that any vehicle 30 years old was classified as 'antique' and was exempted from many of the ordinary requirements including smog testing and maintaining an absolutely stock engine.

I owned (still own) one of those vehicles, a 1977 Trans-Am 6.6L Limited Edition, which I had kept in the hope that it's value would increase as it passed it's 30th year. This law made my investment greatly decrease in value since the car is not so desirable to collectors owing mainly to the smog and stock engine requirement. If this is not 'ex post facto' perhaps you could explain the difference. The law has not been challenged because it is considered constitutional by all legal experts. I will allow that California is known to have a slightly deranged political climate and legal system.

The majority of stock users had no chance to compete...

Sure they did. Just upgrade the client like everyone else with the "competition" mindset.

This is the weakest argument that has been made since the beginning of all the credit fuss. It is transparently simple to create a Boinc client that 'evens the playing field' with respect to AMD-Intel-P4-Linux WITHOUT the 3X credit inflation. Yet, no one did this. I think we all know why.