Add to this thread to convince them to put the work unit total back in as option. Might convince them to add in a useful option that attracts people.

---

> Add to this thread to convince them to put the work unit total back in as
> option. Might convince them to add in a useful option that attracts people.
>

No, no, NO! Don't do this! This is one of the things from seti-clasic that does not need to be over here. Cobblestone 'credits' are sufficient. Tracking '# of completed work units' would work against the stats-unification between boinc projects.

I vote no.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

No vote from me too. I much prefer the multiproject stat to a project specific thing like workunit counts.

---

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8

No vote for me too, Im happy with my "snapshot" totals displayed on my info page.

---

Click below for our Team Website

not to mention that there can be different sized work units under boinc (not yet implemented) as well as different types (astropulse vs. arecibo seti vs. (maybe) Parkes seti)...

cobblestone credits work best.

I don't see the point.

1) "work units" are not cross-project compatible which is one of the fundamental design goals of BOINC. Heck, for some projects there will be several different types of work units so they will be COMPLETELY meaningless.

2) even if this would happen, it still wouldn't change the credit granting process. There would still have to be 3 cannonical results returned before your work unit count would be incremented so you still wouldn't get instant feedback. I know some people claim that using work units would somehow give them a way to monitor the performance of their computers. This is simply not true. It would be the same delay as we have now with cobblestones.

3) This may very well cause people to only do work for projects with the shortest work units so that they can get a bigger number in their stats. Projects like climateprediction would suffer. There is no reason a project should not get CPU power just because their work units take a long time.

4) no other distributed computing project that I could think of in 30 seconds uses a "work unit" concept for credit. Folding uses points and different types of work units are worth different amounts of points. distributed.net uses # of keys analyzed. I believe the "work unit" was relatively unique to seti@home which just goes to point out how bad of a system it really is.

Let the past be the past. We are using cobblestones now

---

A member of The Knights Who Say NI!
For rankings, history graphs and more, check out:
My BOINC stats site

> not to mention that there can be different sized work units under boinc (not
> yet implemented) as well as different types (astropulse vs. arecibo seti vs.
> (maybe) Parkes seti)...
>
> cobblestone credits work best.

This is probably the most important reason.

I vote "no" as well.

---

<FONT>NO</FONT>

---

Be lucky

Neil

My vote doesn't count, anyway...

---

Everything explained enough, so just a loud NO!

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

Hi

Totally agree.

greetz Mike

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

No thank you, I've already had 26,775 of them.
;)

Richard

---

Click the Sig!

BOINC Wiki

NO!

---

The Seti classic people (most of us used to be one, and some still are) are human. They fear change. It also might be an effort to keep the WU count they've worked so hard to earn for so long. They've earned their WU count (most of them anyway), and don't want to loose them. Convincing them that the integrity of the cobblestone count VS WU count is worth giving up their old credit may be difficult.

However, all Seti Classic people will HAVE, to make one of two choices:
One, stop donating cpu cycles to seti
Two, Join Boinc/seti

Joining sooner rather than later will help their credit position in the new system. At this point they're already in a catch up position.

thanks

[2 cents, inserted]

Oh, by the way, I Vote NO

---

No no NO

;o)))))

---

No!

NO!

But nobody listens to me anyway. They just like to look.

Dominique

---

> I don't see the point.
>
> 1) "work units" are not cross-project compatible which is one of the
> fundamental design goals of BOINC. Heck, for some projects there will be
> several different types of work units so they will be COMPLETELY meaningless.

All projects are broken down into defined units. Hey that is something like work units?

>
> 2) even if this would happen, it still wouldn't change the credit granting
> process. There would still have to be 3 cannonical results returned before
> your work unit count would be incremented so you still wouldn't get instant
> feedback. I know some people claim that using work units would somehow give
> them a way to monitor the performance of their computers. This is simply not
> true. It would be the same delay as we have now with cobblestones.

The projects are boring tomost people they want some defined physical goals to run for based on pseudo unit collection. Bulletin board traffic has died miserably when boinc has really started. I don't work with cobblestones. I crunch a packet of data.

>
> 3) This may very well cause people to only do work for projects with the
> shortest work units so that they can get a bigger number in their stats.
> Projects like climateprediction would suffer. There is no reason a project
> should not get CPU power just because their work units take a long time.

Then cut them off there host isn't allowed to participate since they are not performing the science research.


>
> 4) no other distributed computing project that I could think of in 30 seconds
> uses a "work unit" concept for credit. Folding uses points and different
> types of work units are worth different amounts of points. distributed.net
> uses # of keys analyzed. I believe the "work unit" was relatively unique to
> seti@home which just goes to point out how bad of a system it really is.
>

are not all of those standardized work units for those projects. Who cares about credits. My computer has worked on seti work units for 7-9 hours the same time virtual every time for the same application. What do I get back? 5.47 credits, 10.4 credits, up to around 40 something credits. credits are useless pieces of disinformation. If someone tells me their number of workunits and time/wu I can tell what speed of computer they have.


> Let the past be the past. We are using cobblestones now
>

---

> All projects are broken down into defined units. Hey that is something like
> work units?

But different projects have different sizes of WUs. For my machine:
Seti ~3,5h
Predictor: ~1,3h
Einstein: ~9h
Climate: ~900h
And, if I get it right, Seti soon will have different size as well.

> The projects are boring tomost people they want some defined physical goals to
> run for based on pseudo unit collection. Bulletin board traffic has died
> miserably when boinc has really started. I don't work with cobblestones. I
> crunch a packet of data.

Please define 'most people'.
And afaik the WU concept lead to a considerable amount of cheating, which is bad to the bone, because it corrupts the real cause of this crunching: the science.

> Then cut them off there host isn't allowed to participate since they are not
> performing the science research.

Climate research is at least as much science as looking for aliens.

> are not all of those standardized work units for those projects. Who cares
> about credits. My computer has worked on seti work units for 7-9 hours the
> same time virtual every time for the same application. What do I get back?
> 5.47 credits, 10.4 credits, up to around 40 something credits. credits are
> useless pieces of disinformation. If someone tells me their number of
> workunits and time/wu I can tell what speed of computer they have.

There is a problem atm, that the public client (4.19) cheats on windows machines with the benchmarks (or windows cheats on the benchmarks or whatever), so that Win machines claim to much credit. But if I crunch on a WU just a few minutes, because it contained just radio noise, it's fine to get just 1 or 2 credits, because I've done nothing worth more.
The credit system is much more fair as bodycount.

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

NO - If there is no beer involved, I don't see the purpose.

my seti-classic work is gone.

---

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=b3c0c2639ea110901bd0970a1c22efcd">