Eric's Out of Adjectives Post #12: Credit pandemonium


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : SETI@home Staff Blog : Eric's Out of Adjectives Post #12: Credit pandemonium

Previous · 1 · 2
Author Message
OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13615
Credit: 30,383,528
RAC: 21,045
United States
Message 708970 - Posted: 6 Feb 2008, 22:52:20 UTC - in response to Message 708913.

But I guess what I'm trying to say is that I look at credits like video game points: they're fun to collect but I wouldn't cry about them if they're gone, and I wouldn't try to turn them into a big deal that consumes so much of my time on a message board or any other aspect of my life.


Then one has to ponder:

Why exactly is this such a big deal to David Anderson and a small, yet vocal, subset of users?



The big deal is in the fact that humans will make a big deal out of anything so as to feel their life has substance when it doesn't have any.

If your life is full of happiness and love for family, and love for a partner, and love for being, then there isn't much to ponder at all.

It is my opinion that those small, yet vocal subset of users find real substance.
____________

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5823
Credit: 59,054,565
RAC: 47,621
Australia
Message 709177 - Posted: 7 Feb 2008, 6:03:54 UTC - in response to Message 708909.

I don't mind real efforts at cross-project parity at all.

Read the above sentence again before moving forward.

What David Anderson stated, that he was going to ask stat sites to "scale down" (aka "manipulate") the stats of projects that HE deemed as "too much", is NOT a justifiable "means" to the "end" of having project parity.

I've only been reading what's been proposed in this thread, and to me David A's proposal was that each project should grant the same amount of credit per hour/week etc for work done.
"A couple weeks ago, David posted a message to the boinc_projects mailing list requesting that projects normalize the amount of credit they grant to SETI@home." I didn't see any mention of sats sites being asked to change the figures they receive.


In any case, manipulation of the data at the stat site level, in my opinion, is an incorrect approach.

I agree, it should be done by the project.


....then I think you're "very strange indeed"... ;-)

I'm a Postie (i think they're called a Mailman (or maybe Mailperson these days) in the US) so that that's a given.
____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

Brian Silvers
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 99
Posts: 1681
Credit: 492,052
RAC: 0
United States
Message 709261 - Posted: 7 Feb 2008, 12:01:33 UTC - in response to Message 709177.
Last modified: 7 Feb 2008, 12:01:53 UTC

I've only been reading what's been proposed in this thread, and to me David A's proposal was that each project should grant the same amount of credit per hour/week etc for work done.
"A couple weeks ago, David posted a message to the boinc_projects mailing list requesting that projects normalize the amount of credit they grant to SETI@home." I didn't see any mention of sats sites being asked to change the figures they receive.


It was contained in the message that went to the mailing list. That was the missing piece of information I was going to tell you about in PM...

In any case, manipulation of the data at the stat site level, in my opinion, is an incorrect approach.

I agree, it should be done by the project.


Yep. As was pointed out, if the manipulation is done by the current stat sites, some industrious individual would soon put up their own stat site with the raw data. It was a poorly thought out idea...
____________

Stefan Ver3
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 07
Posts: 40
Credit: 418,139
RAC: 0
Antarctica
Message 710834 - Posted: 10 Feb 2008, 18:36:27 UTC

Eric Korpela is God!!
I mean this with the highest respect.
Keep up the good work SETI!
____________
The Search for Extra Terrestrial KItties!!

Eric KorpelaProject donor
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 1088
Credit: 8,882,862
RAC: 12,787
United States
Message 711808 - Posted: 12 Feb 2008, 22:29:54 UTC - in response to Message 710834.

Eric Korpela is God!!


A lot of people make that mistake. I think it's the beard and the near omniscience that confuses people.

;)
____________

Profile Dr. C.E.T.I.
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Feb 00
Posts: 15993
Credit: 690,597
RAC: 0
United States
Message 711815 - Posted: 12 Feb 2008, 22:35:01 UTC - in response to Message 711808.

Eric Korpela is God!!


A lot of people make that mistake. I think it's the beard and the near omniscience that confuses people.

;)


eh Eric - see here: Adopt a Scientist

;))


____________
BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

klangsyndikat
Send message
Joined: 14 May 01
Posts: 5
Credit: 13,318,867
RAC: 5,663
Germany
Message 712733 - Posted: 15 Feb 2008, 2:14:51 UTC

Thanks, Eric, for the explanation, and Brian, and you all for further thoughts.
It is interesting, how far people transit their feelings about belongings into the Boinc-Sphere. I wasn't aware of that.

I honestly dislike the thinking about switching projects to just get higher "credits" back for good..
In my opinion/from my point of view the Boinc-Sys offers an astonishing variety of projects which are all equal to me ("worth"), where every participant of course got her/his favours in science and wants to parcipitate into these sciences especially the most. Thats how I think about the system works (or should work? I think it does.).

I understand, that a lot of people complain about getting in proj A more credits granted then in proj B. But what do these people are really pulling of Boinc for themselves? Just (virtual) credits? I don't want to believe that :|, but yes. There are for sure some out there, and I don't know what it is about, but they seem to feel better about themselves when they push themselves up in a "market", that doesn't give them back more than a number. I call them brokers ;). But these people are not of an interest in science projects! And even if they exist, they are 1. not necessary and 2. not really changing sth in here (imho).

Participating here is just to help a science project I believe in (or I hope in its success), where I see the most worth in, than in some numbers? Even if I would get 10% of the credits other projects give, wouldn't I still keep my shoulders close to the project I'm really behind?
I tried the Einstein project once, because there was a hype in our country about Einstein.., but I must realize that I was faked by media, and came back to the project I liked most.

I totally understand, how hard and full of compromises it is for you to run y/our project besides the others and how hard and unlightful it is to deal with these (for sure - totally economic) matters, especially as you are, like I think, scientists because you like the kind of science Seti deals with (and thats good!). You shouldn't be bothered by that economics stuff, while you can do so much better things with your time to push the project itself forwards.
Don't let you take down by that credit-crazyness. I believe that there is a huge majority of Seti's out there, who just love to let their machines work for Seti, because it is Seti and who believe in your work!

Sorry for my english,
and sorry for posting this here - feeling kind of a thief myself sneaking in your staff-posting-house around, huh.. I'm sneaking out right now.

bye klang


Profile popandbob
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 19 Mar 05
Posts: 535
Credit: 1,896,421
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 724823 - Posted: 12 Mar 2008, 0:15:16 UTC

Couldn't BOINC come up with a base credit formula that everyone can use?

Say something like

1 credit per 1GB of ram used
0.5 credits per 1000 flops
1 credit per 1GB of transfers (downloads/uploads/other internet use)
1 credit per 1GB of hard drive space.
1 credit per 1MB of L2

obviously these numbers are not accurate but following these guidelines then all projects should be the same +- some error. This would also take into demand some apps/projects which have higher requirements which deserve more credit (it makes no sense to me why a project requiring 2x the RAM should grant the same as a project which doesn't need the extra ram).

~BoB
____________


Do you Good Search for Seti@Home? http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=888957
Or Good Shop? http://www.goodshop.com/?charityid=888957

Aurora Borealis
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jan 01
Posts: 2975
Credit: 5,032,184
RAC: 1,369
Canada
Message 725053 - Posted: 12 Mar 2008, 14:55:28 UTC - in response to Message 724823.
Last modified: 12 Mar 2008, 15:00:04 UTC

Couldn't BOINC come up with a base credit formula that everyone can use?

Say something like

1 credit per 1GB of ram used
0.5 credits per 1000 flops
1 credit per 1GB of transfers (downloads/uploads/other internet use)
1 credit per 1GB of hard drive space.
1 credit per 1MB of L2

obviously these numbers are not accurate but following these guidelines then all projects should be the same +- some error. This would also take into demand some apps/projects which have higher requirements which deserve more credit (it makes no sense to me why a project requiring 2x the RAM should grant the same as a project which doesn't need the extra ram).

~BoB

Issuing credit for other resources besides CPU usage has been discussed on the projects mailing list several times in the past. The subject is far from dead and will come up again. My impression is that some kind of system will eventually be implemented but it will take some time to quantify.

There is currently talk on the developers mailing list on how the Boinc manager could handle and assign various needed/optional resources the project may require such are the number of CPU/threads, GPU, etc. This should most likely lead to extra credit being given for special resource needs.

Nicolas
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Mar 05
Posts: 160
Credit: 10,335
RAC: 0
Argentina
Message 734004 - Posted: 4 Apr 2008, 1:46:52 UTC - in response to Message 724823.

0.5 credits per 1000 flops

The problem is it's quite hard to count flops. BOINC already attempts to do it: CPU time / benchmarks. And you know how accurate that is...
____________

Contribute to the Wiki!

Nicolas
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Mar 05
Posts: 160
Credit: 10,335
RAC: 0
Argentina
Message 734019 - Posted: 4 Apr 2008, 2:32:46 UTC

Here's a conclusion we came up to while discussing credits with other people: Cross-project parity is impossible. Stop trying.

OzzFan compared BOINC credits to video game points:

But I guess what I'm trying to say is that I look at credits like video game points: they're fun to collect but I wouldn't cry about them if they're gone, and I wouldn't try to turn them into a big deal that consumes so much of my time on a message board or any other aspect of my life.

That analogy also applies in another aspect.

Games are just different. Suppose we want to make all games give the same points. What would that mean? Try to give on average the same points for 2 minutes of playing, on all games. Of course, the comparison would need to be done with the same players on different games. But some players are better at some games than on others. Some players know better strategies at winning the game than others. So how on earth can you have cross-game score parity?

BOINC projects are just different. Suppose we want to make all projects give the same credits. What would that mean? Try to give on average the same credits for 1 hour of crunching, on all projects. Of course, the comparison would need to be done with the same computers on different projects. But some processors are better on some projects than on others. Some computers run optimized apps, which are faster at crunching a workunit than stock apps. So how on earth can you have cross-project credit parity?

You can't compare your 1000 points in Tetris with your 1000 points in Pacman. They give different amount of points, and there is no way to make them give "the same" amount of points. However, you can compare your 1000 points in Tetris with another player's 15000 points at Tetris (you know he's kicking your *** at it, badly). And, you can compare your #3 rank at one game with your #8 rank at another.

So how about this proposal. Each project gives as many credits as they want. SETI can go back to WU counting if it wants to (with bonus points for good signals?). CPDN could count simulated years. Prime-searching projects can also do WU-counting (number of primes tested) with an "interesting" bonus for primes actually found. Total credits can be compared only within the project, while ranks can be compared across projects too.

(This is not my idea alone, but something that came up during a credit brainstorm at freenode/#rieselsieve. I think it was also suggested by some people on the Interest Falling Away thread. Probably "discovered" independently.)

There is an additional advantage. Currently, people crunching only for the credit would move to projects giving the most credits. Not fair to the projects. If it wasn't for the unwritten agreement Eric talks about, projects would artificially increase credits just to get users. But with my proposal, there are no credits to compare across projects. People have to compare ranks. What projects make it easier to reach top 100? Projects with few users. If people move to a project with few users, it doesn't have few users anymore. Doesn't that end up with users naturally spreading?

Ignore for a moment the extreme complexity of changing the credit scheme, particularly migrating existing credits. And the bigger complexity of educating users on the new credit scheme. Imagine we *can* start from scratch with credits. Imagine BOINC *is* being invented from scratch. In those conditions... Does the above proposal sound like a good idea?

____________

Contribute to the Wiki!

karina
Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 08
Posts: 2
Credit: 180,662
RAC: 342
Uruguay
Message 734201 - Posted: 4 Apr 2008, 15:02:43 UTC

?. sorry, I'm new...

karina, Uy

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8420
Credit: 4,136,240
RAC: 1,462
United Kingdom
Message 734208 - Posted: 4 Apr 2008, 15:18:56 UTC - in response to Message 734201.
Last modified: 4 Apr 2008, 15:20:20 UTC

?. sorry, I'm new...

This is all part of a very long (8 years?) discussion spanning a number of versions of seti@home (s@h).

The 'problem' is that of how to meaningfully/usefully record by how much your computers have helped towards a boinc project such as s@h.

So, the question is that of how best to 'accurately' 'quantify' 'participation'.

Part of the problem is what each of "'accurately' 'quantify' 'participation'" actually mean or represent.


Welcome to the groups. You'll likely find the Number Crunching forum more understandable for an introduction to what's happening!

Or... What do you want from your score number?

Happy crunchin',
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

karina
Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 08
Posts: 2
Credit: 180,662
RAC: 342
Uruguay
Message 734252 - Posted: 4 Apr 2008, 16:46:48 UTC

thank you!. I tried to be more informed...
I'm interested in participate in this project.

I'll be in touch.
karina, Uy

Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : SETI@home Staff Blog : Eric's Out of Adjectives Post #12: Credit pandemonium

Copyright © 2014 University of California