I refer you to my late edit/addition to my previous post.

I should really not type too fast, not only click too fast ;)
It's a typo (and a typical in this discussion) to name the application client.

Application = the scientific programm from the different projects, that does the crunching
Client = the BOINC software, that does no real crunching, only does the communication and organising

I got this mixed up at voting on that forum, and mixed it up again in my answer :(

Optimized applications are no problem at all. They are good, they further the output, they probably deserve more credits/h then stock application.

"Optimized" clients create a problem, when they are not combined with the optimized application they were build for. They don't do any work, so no optimization is needed.

Edit:
Look here for the differences in the acceptance of both (no scientific poll of course, but both from a comparable pool):
Clients Applications

I`ll accept that no problem, but here`s a question for you...

Have YOU at anytime used crunch3rs client ?

Optimized" clients create a problem, when they are not combined with the optimized application they were build for. They don't do any work, so no optimization is needed.

So if you`re x project working, using an optimised client for Seti....is it o.k. to also run another project on which it may skew credits ?

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

I`ll accept that no problem, but here`s a question for you...

Have YOU at anytime used crunch3rs client ?

No. I was always a "project junkie", and the use of them was always decided against by me, as I only crunched a wee part Seti, but it would have affected all projects, and I considered that always as "c", and never would have done that.
I've used some opt. apps nevertheless in my former windoze time @seti, but as well without the matching client. The quorum fixed the underclaiming.

So if you`re x project working, using an optimised client for Seti....is it o.k. to also run another project on which it may skew credits ?

It's no strict right/wrong question imho.
If you run 80% Seti with optimised application, and have some other project(s) with a quorum as backup for outages in Berkeley, it's fine to use the matching client.
In my case I decided it would have been unfair (Seti share about 20%, so just be it and let the quorum do it's share). Now, with Seti share even more down, I would not consider it at all, and the credit issue on the big projects (Seti, Rosetta, CPDN, Einstein) are on the server side anyway.

Sorry Saenger, I`m looking for a post I saw that I thought was from you that stated I have still have crunch3r 5.5 on some machines....I obviously must be mistaken and perhaps it was Thierry or other, I`ll try to dig it out.

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Ooooo, I see a few other posts have been added in an attempt to explain yourself.
So you think the altering of the XML files is ok then saenger ?

---

Ooooo, I see a few other posts have been added in an attempt to explain yourself.
So you think the altering of the XML files is ok then saenger ?

You know this thread is for discussing the resetting of credit. Not claiming issues.

However, if it's not ok to alter the claimed credit, then it's not ok to alter the claimed credit via ANY method, be it automatically through third party software, or manually via xml editting. There is little difference

And this topic would belong in a new thread/existing other thread.

There is little difference

Exactly. Some were doing it one way and others were complaining about those, while doing it themselves another way.

---

Ooooo, I see a few other posts have been added in an attempt to explain yourself.
So you think the altering of the XML files is ok then saenger ?

You know this thread is for discussing the resetting of credit. Not claiming issues.

However, if it's not ok to alter the claimed credit, then it's not ok to alter the claimed credit via ANY method, be it automatically through third party software, or manually via xml editting. There is little difference

And this topic would belong in a new thread/existing other thread.

I think, this is a bit more complicated then your assumption, and I never said that any adjustment is bad. Imho, the stock win client is the gold standard. Anything above that level is too much.
Lin (and Mac?) don't suit the benchmark algorithm, so an adjustment may be OK under certain circumstances.
The use of an optimised application, and the only running of this on one puter, may warrant the use of a matching "opt." client as well, if the project uses the bench * time credit calculation.

Claiming above stock win is not justified imho, and the best solution is of course project side calculation.

Lin (and Mac?) don't suit the benchmark algorithm, so an adjustment may be OK under certain circumstances.

Many said a similar thing about Intel v AMD as their reason for doing what they did and were called everything under the sun for it.

---

Lin (and Mac?) don't suit the benchmark algorithm, so an adjustment may be OK under certain circumstances.

Many said a similar thing about Intel v AMD as their reason for doing what they did and were called everything under the sun for it.

I've heard this here, never on any other project.
Is it really a benchmark issue, or an issue of the suitability of Rosetta for the CPU, like now is happening with PPC?

But still, the issue is not only to get them match, but to do so within the current level, not at some level far above the normal crunchers, like 5.5 did.

Lin (and Mac?) don't suit the benchmark algorithm, so an adjustment may be OK under certain circumstances.

Many said a similar thing about Intel v AMD as their reason for doing what they did and were called everything under the sun for it.

I've heard this here, never on any other project.
Is it really a benchmark issue, or an issue of the suitability of Rosetta for the CPU, like now is happening with PPC?

But still, the issue is not only to get them match, but to do so within the current level, not at some level far above the normal crunchers, like 5.5 did.

It is a benchmark issue, the benchmark suppose to represent the work done by a computer regardless of the underlying hardware/OS

So here at Rosetta Apple Mac PPC users where cheating since they where claiming more credit than they deserved (sosays the new credit system).
Linux users assume automatically that they should have a benchmark equal to windows, THOUGH they do not know if they are as efficent as windows. I've never check so don't actually know.
If Intel CPU are acually doing more work than they are climing, then the benchmark should reflect that.

You cannot have it one way and not the other. This is also a major problem with cross project calibration. While the benchmark may have been fine for Seti@Home for which it ws designed, it does not mean other project are designed the same way, the work done for a paticular setup could be more or less than was developed at seti/boinc.

Seti@home have found this out and found flaws with the benchmark approach. Maybe it should be time for BOINC to realise this and just remove the benchmark altogether and hence leave it upto the project to develop one from the go suitable for that particular project. (If i could find the post, refer to my idea of each project supplying its benchmarking method to a central boinc page so that others have an idea where to start)

---

Team mauisun.org

Tony, I apologise I appear to have taken this thread off topic but it is merely to show the type of hypocrisy that is/was going on.Sorry there is more...

Biggles said like an angel...

What about the math based on XS having advocated the use of optimised clients since the 31st of December 2005? This thread has talked about optimised clients and encouraged the use of them since the day after it was posted. I don't believe that it took three and a half months for XS to notice that part of the setup guide. Optimised clients and the subsequent overclaiming of credit was widespread before April.

But failed to disclose to this forum on 5th September..

But I'm not here to tell you what to do. Crunch3r's 5.5.0 client can be found here(link to crunch3rs client). Just be aware that the credit you claim with it will be far higher than you will be awarded and that some people view it's use as cheating. I just don't feel it's relevant anymore as both SETI and Rosetta have moved on and it does nothing apart from inflate benchmarks. It's still on some of my PCs, but will come off in time when I visit them.

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/122097561/m/566008780831 3rd post down.

I just want to get rid of the hypocrisy of some and the idea it was 2-5 teams using this client, it is patently untrue and XS took the brunt of it, moved on and declared it illegal where they were concerned which appears more than any other team have done.

Saying I don`t think it`s a good idea then providing a link to it seem`s pretty silly imho.

Me, I think the whole of Boinc should be wiped out and started again, after all it`s only fair and right eh ?

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Tralala: Your math game regarding 50 left , 100 entered as new , we gained 50 is very flawed.

That is the problem with number games anyone can play

First of all: Lets assume and this is a safe assumption that the 50 that left had more than one machine dedicated 24/7 to Rosetta . :

We know that at least one of the ones that left even had 100 by themselves: so right there you gained nothing in production by the addition of the 100 new computers : All 100 computers are being used to replace the work of that person and that person alone.

So lets assume the 50 that left averaged 6 computers each: That is 300 computers that left , the project is now 200 computers down.

But legs go further the computers that left many were double cores...lets for argument sake say 35 of the ones that left were double core ...that is the equivalent of 70 computers , so the project lost 235 computers crunching.

And since the majority of the computers of those 5o were faster , ore powerful by the reasons of their CPU , ram, motherboards and overclocking you have lost even more power

Assume 90 % of the 50 machines that left were 1.25 more faster than the ones that substituted them you actually have lost the equivalent of 225 computers .

So 50 left, 100 entered , the project lost the work of 225.

Not yet... Since hadn't they have left those computers would have still been crunching and their work being added , the project actually lost 225 more computers ...

Jose, your arguments seem to be sound but I think you stopped short of providing the whole picture.

First: Yes, the loss of any computers because their owners were disenchanted or otherwise driven away from the project is a loss. It cannot be said to be made up for by new users, because we have to assume that those new users would have come to the project whether or not the old ones left.

Except some users may have actually been drawn into the project by the same changes that drove others away. There isn't any proof that this actually happened, or would happen, so I won't claim that it did or will, but it must be considered in a holistic approach.

Second: It must be taken into account that at lest some of the new computers coming to the project will also be high-end machines. This reduces the effect of loss of other high-end machinnes.

I should note here that this second point is moot in light of the first point except in the case that new users are drawn in specifically because of the changes that caused others to leave. This brings me to my third point.

Third: The real question to ask here is whether the long term effects will be positive or negative.

This prompts the question, "Will more people (per day, per year, etc.) join in the future after a change than before that change?" I don't think that the differences will be statistically significant in the positive direction or in the negative direction. I doubt that most people who join put enough research into the credit system before joining to even realize if there has been a change.

Follow up question: "Will more people stay with the project after the change than would have before said change?" If the change is to zero out credits or backdate, then it could be argued that many current users (especially those who had joined shortly before the change) would decide not to continue. As for users joining after the change (who IMO determine the future success of the project to at least the same degree as those before them), I don't think that there would be much of a difference. The exception would be a handful of newbies with high end machines who would see an opportunity to jump to the top of the boards and therefore stay longer than they might have otherwise, but I don't know that they would represent a large enough group to merit extra consideration.

---

Good point that there's also a potential for gain.

Is there any way that we could take a random poll of users about the issue? It would need to be solicited of the entire contributing community rather than just those who visit the message boards.

A vote - 1 credit = 1 vote.


I STILL don't understand why Tony brought up this subject again and again and again and again and and and -

There is no reason to start Rosetta II - and start credits over again in a new project - this is still BOINC.

Just move on boys and girls - move on.

And Tony - WAKE UP !!!!!! This has been talked about until it is dead, buried and rotten. Bringing it up again will only inflame the situation.

And did not I read a few posts back you sayin "See a discussion has started" Is this what you really want? Another dead flame fest of the idea of back dating credits ? This is why Rosetta lost so many crunchers because of the "threat" of this action -

Do you really want this to happen again.


TONY - YOU ARE HURTING THIS PROJECT - PLEASE LEAVE !!!

---

SETI.USA

Good point that there's also a potential for gain.

Is there any way that we could take a random poll of users about the issue? It would need to be solicited of the entire contributing community rather than just those who visit the message boards.

A vote - 1 credit = 1 vote.


I STILL don't understand why Tony brought up this subject again and again and again and again and and and -

There is no reason to start Rosetta II - and start credits over again in a new project - this is still BOINC.

Just move on boys and girls - move on.

And Tony - WAKE UP !!!!!! This has been talked about until it is dead, buried and rotten. Bringing it up again will only inflame the situation.

And did not I read a few posts back you sayin "See a discussion has started" Is this what you really want? Another dead flame fest of the idea of back dating credits ? This is why Rosetta lost so many crunchers because of the "threat" of this action -

Do you really want this to happen again.


TONY - YOU ARE HURTING THIS PROJECT - PLEASE LEAVE !!!

I don't understand your "1 credit = 1 vote" comment.

I see a civilized discussion arising here. Very unlike many recent threads. If it turns into a flame fest, then we should rethink, but so far it feels healthy.

---

What don’t you understand - 1 credit = 1 vote = it was mentioned here that there should be a vote on zeroing out or backdating credits. This was in reply to that.
I.e. your credits = 37,161 so you would get 37,161 votes.
I have 2,449,509 credits, therefore I would have 2,449,509 votes = lets see who would win.

You say this is a "civilized discussion" ? Over what ? A dead issue. There is no reason to have any sort of further discussion on this matter, civilized or otherwise.

Tony only brought up this issue to re-fan the flames. This has been discussed to death and should NEVER have been brought up again.

IMO - this entire thread should be removed because of it's plain silliness.

---

SETI.USA

What don’t you understand - 1 credit = 1 vote = it was mentioned here that there should be a vote on zeroing out or backdating credits. This was in reply to that.
I.e. your credits = 37,161 so you would get 37,161 votes.
I have 2,449,509 credits, therefore I would have 2,449,509 votes = lets see who would win.

This would be like voting on whether the rich should be taxed and selling votes for a dollar each.

You say this is a "civilized discussion" ? Over what ? A dead issue. There is no reason to have any sort of further discussion on this matter, civilized or otherwise.

The issue doesn't seem so dead if people are contributing to a live discussion.

Tony only brought up this issue to re-fan the flames. This has been discussed to death and should NEVER have been brought up again.

If he's fanning the flames, it doesn't seem to be working. I don't see flames growing.

My personal opinion is that there is nothing that could be done to "fix" anything without causing more damage, but discussions on boards like these is where many such problems are worked out. If noone comes up with a good idea, then at least we tried, and if someone (or many people together) come up with something, then we're even better off.

---

It's the usual problem with this topic.

The Project admins or scientists (D. Kim or D. Baker) refuse to come on here and say one way or the other whether backdating is even possible, or if they would even consider zeroing out credits and startin over with Rosetta 2 or whatever you would call it.

Until that happens, this is just all noise.

This would be like voting on whether the rich should be taxed and selling votes for a dollar each.

Hey, I did not bring it up, I only responded - but I think it is a great idea.


This discussion should have been dead as soon as the proj devs said no - that was over a month ago to my recollection. They said there would be NO backdating and NO zeroing out of current credit status.

When a decision has been made by the project developers do people continue with the conversation and start new threads WEEKS after the decision has been made - If not to pick a fight, then what ? Discuss because he has nothing else to do with his life than spend hours compiling huge graphs, and re-re-re hashing old issues over and over again ?

The issue of zeroing out credits and backdating has been discussed, voted against by the project developers. Why continue ?

Lets move on people - get your brain out of neutral and go forward.

---

SETI.USA

It's the usual problem with this topic.

The Project admins or scientists (D. Kim or D. Baker) refuse to come on here and say one way or the other whether backdating is even possible, or if they would even consider zeroing out credits and startin over with Rosetta 2 or whatever you would call it.

Until that happens, this is just all noise.

They have, WEEKS ago - to them it is a dead issue - they have come here on this message board and said NO -

That is why this thread is so stupid, discussing a dead issue.



here is just ONE comment I found on the issue - I have not the time nor energy to go further.

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2153#24821



And a quote - "thread has been removed"

"30) Message boards : : Number crunching : New credit system already live
Posted 30 days ago by David Kim

We made a final decision and the decision was to keep the credit totals and just switch over to the new system. "

---

SETI.USA