Whats the big deal over credits ??

A work unit is a work unit. What's with the DIFFERENT
calculation ??

If Your forcing everyone to this new style. Why are you saying screw the old contributors.

Boink is YOUR DEAL not mine. I don't give a .... about
other "PROJECTS"

STAY WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE SETI PROJECT !

---

The original intent of the SETI Project has not changed. There is a lot of information out there about BOINC and SETI on BOINC. BOINC is not only about being able to run other projects. There are a lot of old contributors here that don't share your views.

Whats the big deal over credits ??

Exactly, just crunch some WUs.

---

Help and BOINC documentation is available here.

Everything you want to know about credit can be find at the Boinc Wiki at this place.

---

Read the News at the homepage
Have a look at the Technical News
Look if your question is not answered at the Boinc Wiki

Best greetings, Thierry

A work unit is a work unit. What's with the DIFFERENT
calculation ??

Ah, but a work unit isn't a work unit!

Classic gave the same credit to all WUs, whether it was a noisy WU that took almost no time at all, or a full run WU. S@H under BOINC gives credit for actual work done. A noisy WU gives you the paltry credit it deserves, whereas a full run gives you credits respective of the amount of time it took to process.

This system is nice for those running multiple projects which have different sized WUs than S@H, yet even if you only run a single project, the system allows for different WU sizes. Projects such as LHC have 3 different WU sizes. Some take an hour or two, some take eight or more. Does it really make sense to give these different sized WUs the same credit even though some take considrably longer than others? I sure don't think so.

So as you can see, the simple 1 WU = 1 Credit formula from classic, simply doesn't work with the BOINC system of credits. BOINC is variable, classic was not. How can you possibly convert the old system of credits to the new?

A work unit is a work unit. What's with the DIFFERENT
calculation ??

Ah, but a work unit isn't a work unit!

Classic gave the same credit to all WUs, whether it was a noisy WU that took almost no time at all, or a full run WU. S@H under BOINC gives credit for actual work done. A noisy WU gives you the paltry credit it deserves, whereas a full run gives you credits respective of the amount of time it took to proces

This system is nice for those running multiple projects which have different sized WUs than S@H, yet even if you only run a single project, the system allows for different WU sizes. Projects such as LHC have 3 different WU sizes. Some take an hour or two, some take eight or more. Does it really make sense to give these different sized WUs the same credit even though some take considrably longer than others? I sure don't think so.

You just Made my real point. IT"S NOT SETI any more... I don't care about
credit for other projects. I don't care about other projects. I didn't join BOINC I joined seti !!!!!!! So the old way had errors ... SO WHAT! that's the way it is. Tough toe nails. To me cross project credit is meaningless anyway. gee I suck at at baseball but play killer chess. It don't mean squat.

It is in effect saying SCREW my past contributions the whiners want something else. Essentially they don't care about what people have already done they care
only about this new xxx and the whiners.

---

Whats the big deal over credits ??

Exactly, just crunch some WUs.

Gee that was a real meaningfull statement to post

---

STAY WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE SETI PROJECT !

AFAIK the original intend was to create a distributed computer network via internet to crunch the huge amount of data generated by the arecibo telescope.

Credits, WU-counts, teams, competition, are only promotonal tools for the core science.

But....
this promotional tools (and the science of course) attracted so many people, that at some time in the past the team had to resend already crunched data just to feed the eager community (up to 30 times per WU). So they decided to share their whealth (overboarding CPU power) with other worthy projects, and to create a DC framework.

It fitted fine, that it would be necessary as well for the future projects @Seti, like AstroPulse and SouthernHemisphere.

With these projects will undoubtly come different WU sizes, so the gratification system had to be changed to something more fair. That's been done with the cobblestones.

So even if you want to stay solely with Seti, the new system was a necessity, not an arbitrary change for the sake of change.

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

You just Made my real point. IT"S NOT SETI any more... I don't care about
credit for other projects. I don't care about other projects. I didn't join BOINC I joined seti !!!!!!! So the old way had errors ... SO WHAT! that's the way it is. Tough toe nails. To me cross project credit is meaningless anyway. gee I suck at at baseball but play killer chess. It don't mean squat.

Perhaps you missed my real point. I mentioned the benefits of the system with other projects. Not that this system is to cater to other projects. Seti WUs (yes, even classic) don't all have the same run times... There are noisy WUs in the classic project as well. Why should these give as much credit as a valid WU when there is no actual science being done?

Seti also has plans for using data gathered from other telescopes. I'm willing to bet these WUs have different run times. If one telescope produces data that takes an hour to process, while another takes eight hours, doesn't it make more sense to get more credit for more work done? The old 1 credit for 1 WU system simply doesn't work any more...

It is in effect saying SCREW my past contributions the whiners want something else. Essentially they don't care about what people have already done they care
only about this new xxx and the whiners.

They do care about past contributions. That's why you can see your classic credits on your account page.

STAY WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE SETI PROJECT !

AFAIK the original intend was to create a distributed computer network via internet to crunch the huge amount of data generated by the arecibo telescope.

Credits, WU-counts, teams, competition, are only promotonal tools for the core science.

But....
this promotional tools (and the science of course) attracted so many people, that at some time in the past the team had to resend already crunched data just to feed the eager community (up to 30 times per WU). So they decided to share their whealth (overboarding CPU power) with other worthy projects, and to create a DC framework.

Where did this Idea come from ???

It fitted fine, that it would be necessary as well for the future projects @Seti, like AstroPulse and SouthernHemisphere.

With these projects will undoubtly come different WU sizes, so the gratification system had to be changed to something more fair. That's been done with the cobblestones.

Other projects WERE NOT the original intent !

So even if you want to stay solely with Seti, the new system was a necessity, not an arbitrary change for the sake of change.

Analizing 2sec of signal is 2sec Why would It's size vary ???

---

You just Made my real point. IT"S NOT SETI any more... I don't care about
credit for other projects. I don't care about other projects. I didn't join BOINC I joined seti !!!!!!! So the old way had errors ... SO WHAT! that's the way it is. Tough toe nails. To me cross project credit is meaningless anyway. gee I suck at at baseball but play killer chess. It don't mean squat.

Perhaps you missed my real point. I mentioned the benefits of the system with other projects. Not that this system is to cater to other projects. Seti WUs (yes, even classic) don't all have the same run times... There are noisy WUs in the classic project as well. Why should these give as much credit as a valid WU when there is no actual science being done?

So why whine "IT'S NOT FARE" that's the way it was!
So base it directly on cpu time not some crappy convoluted formula.
I've had units with boinc where I only got 1/2 credit for the cpu time.
I feel the old method was fare. You got 1 credit for analizing about 2sec
of signal. Regardless of how long it took or how fast Your computer was.

Seti also has plans for using data gathered from other telescopes. I'm willing to bet these WUs have different run times. If one telescope produces data that takes an hour to process, while another takes eight hours, doesn't it make more sense to get more credit for more work done? The old 1 credit for 1 WU system simply doesn't work any more...

It is in effect saying SCREW my past contributions the whiners want something else. Essentially they don't care about what people have already done they care
only about this new xxx and the whiners.

They do care about past contributions. That's why you can see your classic credits on your account page.

Boinc seems like a great improvement but I don't think the new start over credit system is fare to old seti contributors. Not to mention Boinc is several times larger demanding a larger contribution from users

---

So why whine "IT'S NOT FARE" that's the way it was!
So base it directly on cpu time not some crappy convoluted formula.
I've had units with boinc where I only got 1/2 credit for the cpu time.
I feel the old method was fare. You got 1 credit for analizing about 2sec
of signal. Regardless of how long it took or how fast Your computer was.

So who's whining? Not me. I had no problem with the way the old system worked at the time. I just happen to think the new system makes more sense.

And the concept behind the crappy convoluted formula is that everybody running that WU will all be given the same amount of credit.

Boinc seems like a great improvement but I don't think the new start over credit system is fare to old seti contributors. Not to mention Boinc is several times larger demanding a larger contribution from users

I don't know. Don't you think it's fun to climb back up to the top? I would think a lot of people would love the additional challenge. That would really show who the top dog is. :)