Hi all,

According to 'BOINK Statistics for the WORLD', I am ranked around 870th. When going to SETI@home's Top Patricipants I can not see myself there, or anywhere in the listing for that matter.

Am I missing something? If not, what stats are accurate?

Regards,
James

It depends on when you look. If an update just occured, you may be missing for a few minutes....

---

<a><img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=525">

<a><img src="http://www.wombatradio.com/stats/rtb/sig.php">

> Hi all,
>
> According to 'BOINK Statistics for the WORLD', I am ranked around 870th. When
> going to SETI@home's Top Patricipants I can not see myself there, or anywhere
> in the listing for that matter.
>
> Am I missing something? If not, what stats are accurate?
>
> Regards,
> James
>
>
> I think the best website for stats is on the nights who sa NI stats page.
>http://macg.no-ip.info:5520/boinc/

---

James,

Most of the stats sites sort by total credit. The berkeley pages sort by recent average credit (RAC). If you click on the 'total credit' column on the seti@home website, you are currently listed as #847. The BOINC projects all base their leaderboards on RAC by default. I think the theory is to keep people on their toes. If you accumulate massive amounts of credit but then slow down, you will fall quickly in the ranks if they are sorted by RAC. I think all of the stats sites sort by total credit by default since this is the way it has always been done I guess - and it does kind of make more sense... :)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Everette :)

---

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

> James,
>
> Most of the stats sites sort by total credit. The berkeley pages sort by
> recent average credit (RAC). If you click on the 'total credit' column on the
> seti@home website, you are currently listed as #847. The BOINC projects all
> base their leaderboards on RAC by default. I think the theory is to keep
> people on their toes. If you accumulate massive amounts of credit but then
> slow down, you will fall quickly in the ranks if they are sorted by RAC. I
> think all of the stats sites sort by total credit by default since this is the
> way it has always been done I guess - and it does kind of make more sense...
> :)
>
> Thanks for the vote of confidence, Everette :)
>

Thanks, that has cleared it all up.