Message boards :
Number crunching :
Pending credit: 164.90 granted O,O
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Guido_Waldenmeier_BiV Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 37 Credit: 0 RAC: 0 |
[/url] Long time ago far far away ;-) |
Heffed Send message Joined: 19 Mar 02 Posts: 1856 Credit: 40,736 RAC: 0 |
> [/url] > Long time ago far far away ;-) Remember Guido, this project wasn't even ready for the beta testers yet... |
Guido_Waldenmeier_BiV Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 37 Credit: 0 RAC: 0 |
[/url] i want my credits please MOM :-))) Long time ago far far away ;-) |
MAOJC Send message Joined: 31 Jan 00 Posts: 11 Credit: 991,339 RAC: 0 |
You think you got a few stacked up! LMAO Soon the results of the first round are trikling in! |
John McLeod VII Send message Joined: 15 Jul 99 Posts: 24806 Credit: 790,712 RAC: 0 |
Creditsare granted after three different hosts return results that the verifier determines are "the same". The credit granted will be the middle of the three credit requests. This was done to promote science over cheating. It also makes certain that someone that has a problem with their machine will not be getting credit that they do not deserve. This includes machines that have been so severly over clocked that the FPU is not stable. Having an unstable FPU is not easy to diagnose, but it does show in S@H results. Apparently many results from S@H1 had problems with the science, either cheating of one sort or another, or trouble with the FPU. With a small number of active hosts and a large number of WUs, it will take a while before each one is verified. With more active hosts, the time to have three valid results will be shorter. There is a bug that has been noted that some of the WUs that have been crunched already have only required 2 results to validate. This is currently being looked into. jm7 |
StieflerDuo Send message Joined: 19 Feb 03 Posts: 27 Credit: 17,330 RAC: 0 |
> Creditsare granted after three different hosts return results that the > verifier determines are "the same". I'd really like to hear that the results are verified now. They weren't in Beta-Test and I don't think they are now. > The credit granted will be the middle of the three credit requests. > > This was done to promote science over cheating. It also makes certain that > someone that has a problem with their machine will not be getting credit that > they do not deserve. I think it was a good idea to raise the number of completed Workunits from 2 to 3 within the Beta-Test and cut the top and bottom claimed credit and grant the medium one. It should fit in most cases. The only problem I see now is that if the results are not verified against each other, a "problematic host" will have lots of benefits from this. In the Beta-Test we saw sometimes hosts that were producing an amazing lot of bogus results with a very low claimed credit within a small period of time. The most annoying thing to the users was that if they returned the second result to the pair for these Workunits, they got the low claimed credit of the bogus host. Of course the people affected by this became angry about it, but at least the bogus hosts didn't get any real benefit from this because they only got the very small credits they've claimed, and even if they sent out lots of those bogus results the credit through the day didn't exceed normal limits. Nowadays with the "grant the middle of three"-system these hosts would raise through sky's limit with their credit, because they'd get a reasonable granted credit for their impossible number of results per day. My opinion is that as long as the server doesn't verify the results we didn't win anything. > There is a bug that has been noted that some of the WUs that have been > crunched already have only required 2 results to validate. This is currently > being looked into. We've seen this effect of "Didn't need"-Messages in the "Outcome"-row of Workunit's descriptions in the Beta-Test already. This is being looked into for months now and I don't see any change. Kind regards Mike [url=http://www.boinc.dk/index.php?page=user_statistics&userid=13991] |
Mike Send message Joined: 17 Feb 01 Posts: 34256 Credit: 79,922,639 RAC: 80 |
HI But what i see is the same when Beta starts, much WUs with marked as unsent. Which will never get credits granted. greetz Mike [url=http://www.boinc.dk/index.php?page=user_statistics&userid=9826] |
Shaktai Send message Joined: 16 Jun 99 Posts: 211 Credit: 259,752 RAC: 0 |
> HI > > But what i see is the same when Beta starts, much WUs with marked as unsent. > Which will never get credits granted. > > greetz Mike > I don't think that is an error. It is due to the intentionally low number of participants. Those additional work units just haven't been sent out yet. Eventually they should be sent to other computers for validation. Remember, this is still a test page. Only a handful of selected people are supposed to be testing it. Many others joined in too early, but not all work units have been assigned to 3 computers yet. Patience. [url=http://team.macnn.com] |
Heffed Send message Joined: 19 Mar 02 Posts: 1856 Credit: 40,736 RAC: 0 |
> I'd really like to hear that the results are verified now. > They weren't in Beta-Test and I don't think they are now. I think you are forgetting that this is still beta. In fact, this project wasn't even intended for beta yet! "Live" is still a ways off, contrary to what some people think. However, live was somewhat forced by some idiot that leaked the URL to this site. If you take a look at the Main page, you will see that this project is indeed not live! :( Here is the relevent text. "June 8, 2004 NOTICE: this project is not officially active. Use at your own risk. We may delete results and reset credits at any time." So please stop referring to beta in past tense. Beta is still going on regardless of how many testers jumped ship a little prematurely. (which hoses both this project, and beta) Plus, now there are S@H1 people transferring over thinking it's "live", and they are now asking about all the "new" bugs that we're already aware of in beta. Not a fantastic "launch", that's for sure! :( I think Dev should shut this site down until it's actually ready. All that can come of it is new users hopping in thinking it's the real deal, and getting discouraged by the problems. It has a net effect of making Dev, and the beta team look bad. |
StieflerDuo Send message Joined: 19 Feb 03 Posts: 27 Credit: 17,330 RAC: 0 |
> I think you are forgetting that this is still beta. In fact, this project > wasn't even intended for beta yet! You're running through open doors here. Trust me I'm better aware of this fact than you thought of. It's me who asked others to stop sending people to this page without having a clue of what effects will raise from this. But anyway, now we're here and when you here me referring to beta it's not like talking about 19th century but referring to the fact that we're discussing things already mentioned elsewhere, namely at Beta-Test. In this special case I only pointed out that your thought of having a validator on the server-side yet might be wrong. Kind regards Mike [url=http://www.boinc.dk/index.php?page=user_statistics&userid=13991] |
Guido_Waldenmeier_BiV Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 37 Credit: 0 RAC: 0 |
sorry i write in german ,i can not good translate this what i will say Leute wenn diese theorie stimmen würde,das viele ergebnisse versendet werden aber wenige computer rechnen,wundert es mich das die ersten plätze so gnadenlos abziehen im vergleich zu den ersten 20 der liste unter http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah/top_users.php und oh zufall die ersten 2 kommen aus den USA. mir ist das system der drei sorten kredite schon klar im prinzip aber irgend wie ist da der wurm drin.also meiner meinung noch weit vom status eines beta testes entfernt. nichts für ungut gruss guido Long time ago far far away ;-) |
Heffed Send message Joined: 19 Mar 02 Posts: 1856 Credit: 40,736 RAC: 0 |
@ StieflerDuo Sorry man, I'm just more than a little annoyed that someone mucked it up... :( @ Guido I tried a translator, but literal translations always come out a bit strange. It looks as though you are saying that since the top people are from the US, that someone in the US was the leak? That could very well be. I have no idea who might have done it, only that it was done. I still feel Dev could find out who if they wanted to. Maybe cancel an account or something? Just a thought... |
SirUlli Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 58 Credit: 28,048 RAC: 0 |
@Guido, look at the Fleet from MAOJC(Medium Array of Junk Computers) http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah/forum_thread.php?id=13 i see 24 Hosts Greetings from Germany NRW Ulli |
Guido_Waldenmeier_BiV Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 37 Credit: 0 RAC: 0 |
that is true ulli looks like 24 *grinz*ich bin doch nicht blöd* und kaufe bei MM ;-) [/url] Long time ago far far away ;-) |
eRazor Send message Joined: 30 Dec 99 Posts: 12 Credit: 62,805 RAC: 0 |
**Note: Not intended to be directed specifically at heffed. This is intended as an extension to the text below. > > I'd really like to hear that the results are verified now. > > They weren't in Beta-Test and I don't think they are now. > > I think you are forgetting that this is still beta. In fact, this project > wasn't even intended for beta yet! > > "Live" is still a ways off, contrary to what some people think. However, live > was somewhat forced by some idiot that leaked the URL to this site. This project was intended to be a closed test of the data that was exported from classic sah, a bug hunting expedition for project "startup" problems, and database performance testing/tweaking with "production site" amounts of data. It was not intended to be public until the testing phase was complete, and credit reset. We don't even have a "production ready" core client yet (although it's very close). Everyone can expect that the credits gained here will be zeroed before public launch. If you're in the game to amass credits, you'd be better off back in beta where you should be, and will eventually be rewarded in some fasion for your participation. |
eRazor Send message Joined: 30 Dec 99 Posts: 12 Credit: 62,805 RAC: 0 |
> I tried a translator, but literal translations always come out a bit strange. > It looks as though you are saying that since the top people are from the US, > that someone in the US was the leak? That could very well be. I have no idea > who might have done it, only that it was done. > > I still feel Dev could find out who if they wanted to. Maybe cancel an account > or something? Just a thought... Have you ever tried to stuff a p1ssed off cat back into the bag? Even chainmail doesn't help :) It's a done deal. It really doesn't matter where it came from so it's really fruitless to dig for the culprit. It just means that there will be more credits/results to zero out, and a lot more work for the team to sort through the bug reports for what's fact or fiction. It's unfortunate though, that so many people have ditched the beta project where their participation is most useful and productive. Losing so many from beta may well delay the public launch. |
Guido_Waldenmeier_BiV Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 37 Credit: 0 RAC: 0 |
[/url] no comment no words Long time ago far far away ;-) |
Heffed Send message Joined: 19 Mar 02 Posts: 1856 Credit: 40,736 RAC: 0 |
> no comment no words Good call, Guido... :( |
Jord Send message Joined: 9 Jun 99 Posts: 15184 Credit: 4,362,181 RAC: 3 |
> Credits are granted after three different hosts return results that the > verifier determines are "the same". The credit granted will be the middle of > the three credit requests. =============== Looks like it isn't working. ;) ---------------------- Jordâ„¢ |
SURVEYOR Send message Joined: 19 Oct 02 Posts: 375 Credit: 608,422 RAC: 0 |
Two have been completed and one is still in progress. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.