A percentage of my 'granted' credit is lower than that which is claimed!
What is the reason for this?

---

A percentage of my 'granted' credit is lower than that which is claimed!
What is the reason for this?

Seti normaly takes the second lowest number of the quorum and when three or four results are in, credit is validated. I know that you think this is wrong, so do I sometimes when I claim 40 credits and only get 15 etc. People have complain about it for ages but still nothing is done. Some seti members are lucky and get more credits and some are not, it just like life.
"Some are lucky, some are not. Let's be thankful for what we get"

---

Actually, it throws out the top and bottom, averages the middle ...

---

Now I have x2 results that have been granted 0(zero) credit! 8 hours of crunching and for what - nought!

---

The better question is why there is such a difference within a reporting group. One reason is the benchmarking and another is the use of optimized clients. I recommend you move to an optimized client because you will get the calculation done faster, which is what we should want. But as a side benefit, until everyone's clients are optimized, it seems the credit granting algorithm, lame as it is, will give you typically 50% to 300% more credit than you requested (personal experience).

There is lots of threads about credits; have a nice weekend reading them all.

---

May this Farce be with You

Either the WU's were actually crunched i only a minte or two and you didnt notice or there were too many people had errors trying to download the unit.
If you could post the WU I'm sure someone can tell you what happened.

I HAD to get the optimised client. Over a two week time my average credit fell by 150 points. I hate that now I'm doing the same to someone else but hopefully the public releases will become better and solve the problem

---

The better question is why there is such a difference within a reporting group. One reason is the benchmarking and another is the use of optimized clients. I recommend you move to an optimized client because you will get the calculation done faster, which is what we should want. But as a side benefit, until everyone's clients are optimized, it seems the credit granting algorithm, lame as it is, will give you typically 50% to 300% more credit than you requested (personal experience).

There is lots of threads about credits; have a nice weekend reading them all.

I run an optomized client and crunch WU's about 25% faster so it allows me to return more WU's. the credit that is claimed while useing the optomized client is typicaly 40% to 50% less than the non opomized client.
Evan with this optomized client it is still the same, high and low results get thrown out and the middle averaged. There are WU's that i get less credit than claimed and WU's that i get more than is claimed. On average it all comes out about the same so this getting 300% more is not a typical response for an optomized client.
Credits are a nice stat for how much work you have done but credit is not why the majoraty of people are here, it is for the knowalage that we are contribuitng to the cause not for fame or anything else.

/just my 2 cents

---

Wiki de BOINC

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=51a3eaaef8df276544f56140a8a65413">

Actually, one of the posts explains this, but it is pretty simple to have figured it out yourself. If your box is returning results with less claimed credit than the next guy, it is to your advantage to have a large queue and thereby come late to the party (but still inside the expiration window). Then your claimed credit will not bias the granted credit computed. That is, on average you would have lowered the granted credit due to the asumption above.

It is a WIN-WIN-WIN-WIN: You get more credit for working on the same wu as your competitors, on average; you actually compute more science because you are returning more results per day; your queue is long enough to suffer through the boinc/seti chaos at command central (like this week); and you will likely have fewer lingering pending credits, since the party is over when you arrive!

---

May this Farce be with You

Now I have x2 results that have been granted 0(zero) credit! 8 hours of crunching and for what - nought!

With your computers hidden we cannot look at the WU to tell you what went wrong.

Either you have to make your computers visible or give us the ID numbers of the WU you are having problems with.

Historically, the problem is usually an invalid result. But there is no way to tell with out the links ...

---

there is mention of optimized clients - what are they and how do I obtain one?

---

there is mention of optimized clients - what are they and how do I obtain one?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=15813

Begin here and read. There is a few mirror sites. You may have to go to earlier threads as well. The one in .nl is very clear.

---

May this Farce be with You

I think we all crunch for the Science and the Fun...

Greetings from Germany NRW
Ulli

Now I have x2 results that have been granted 0(zero) credit! 8 hours of crunching and for what - nought!

With your computers hidden we cannot look at the WU to tell you what went wrong.

Either you have to make your computers visible or give us the ID numbers of the WU you are having problems with.

Historically, the problem is usually an invalid result. But there is no way to tell with out the links ...

ssdI too had the problem of diminished credit for work done. Indeed I was given only 0.26; 0;59 and 0;35 respectively when a day previously the credit had been 24.26 and similar credit for the other two. The Work Units ID's are:
19168156
19198407
18997299

It would be interesting to know how this ocurred, otherwise, I am glad you were able to get the bugs out, and on with the show!!
Leon in Austiin

---

Leon Ashbrook

Leon, you have run into a bunch of what we call "noisy work units". If you look at the result ID per unit, you'll see it has the following error message:

SETI@Home Informational message -9 result_overflow
NOTE: The number of results detected exceeds the storage space allocated.

This message means that more data was generated than there was storage space assigned to recieve the data. The most common cause for this message is RFI or Radio Frequency Interference. (taken from: the Wiki).

---

---

Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....

Leon, you have run into a bunch of what we call "noisy work units". If you look at the result ID per unit, you'll see it has the following error message:

SETI@Home Informational message -9 result_overflow
NOTE: The number of results detected exceeds the storage space allocated.

This message means that more data was generated than there was storage space assigned to recieve the data. The most common cause for this message is RFI or Radio Frequency Interference. (taken from: the Wiki).

Thanks very much for the info. I have bookmarked your referenced page.
Leon

---

Leon Ashbrook

Bookmark the introduction page... much better.

Though, There is still some information in the old site, mostly because I am still scrambling to move it over ...

Most of the FAQ and Owner's Manual is over, The Web Site Owner's manual has not been started yet in the Wiki.

The glossary in the Wiki is more complete than the older one. When I am sure that I have all of the material over for the FAQ I will kill it on the old site (but I will make a warning message ...

If there is something that you had to go to the old site to learn, let me know and I will make a point to move it over. My trouble is that I do not always know what is being used, so I may move the wrong things....

---