I believe that we should have the right to pick from a pool of people/computers, to choose who our wingmen will be, up to 20 WU's per person, so that we are not waiting for months, to get credit for WU's, we already completed, for those of us that are deticated crunchers or more deticated than others (which I think would provide much better results for SETI anyway) If we can not choose, at least match us with those people that have similar setups for systems/vid cards, that also have a set amount of shared resources for that project (for example those who only want to dedicate 20% to that project should be paired with someone who also has only dedicated 20% for that project) and a certain amount of RAC so that we know that person is an active cruncher. That way we know that it at least will be eventually gotten to within a couple weeks, not a few months, or even a couple months. I'm sure this could be elaborated on more, and improved, as brainstorming together, tends to help with. Let's put our heads together, and maybe we can give SETI something to ponder on, and hopefully implement for us.

---

http://www.goodsearch.com/nonprofit/university-of-california-setihome.aspx

To prevent cheating is the quick answer to why this idea will get nowhere.

Normally the only time I have to wait more then a few weeks for something to validate is due to either someones machine dying or some kind of ghosted task.

At the moment I have about 1500 pending tasks. Over 90% of them are less than 2 weeks old. The oldest task I have at the moment that is waiting for a wingman is from July 25th & I see that the last time they contacted the server is the 26th. That task times out for them tomorrow. So will probably get cleared out pretty soon.

Being able to pick your wingman will not prevent having to wait for tasks to time out for reasons beyond anyone's control.

I doubt the BOINC devs would add this to their "to do" as it does not serve any purpose other then to appease a select few.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

So ultimately what this really boils down to is that you want faster computers to be the partners for faster computers simply so you can get your credit faster.


Why should I be in favor of a system that caters to any group based upon their insistence on getting credit faster?


Unless I can hear sound, scientific reasons (and please, don't mention less workunits clogging up the database as a scientific reason), I can so no reason to support such a cause.

The motivations are all wrong, IMO.

I don't think it would serve any purpose whatsoever. My tasks tend to get validated pretty quickly. Weather that's immediately, a month, or even longer makes no difference to me. The work gets crunched :).

Also there are some projects that have a minimum quorum of 1. That might be more what you are looking for? Prime Grid is the only one that I have experience with that does that.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

If a project needs validation, then the wingman must be random. Otherwise a couple people could conspire to cheat.

---

If a project needs validation, then the wingman must be random. Otherwise a couple people could conspire to cheat.

+1

---

If a project needs validation, then the wingman must be random. Otherwise a couple people could conspire to cheat.

+1

+2

---

...

^2

Randomness prevents cherry picking of:
a - your buddies
b - the quick turnaround merchants

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

+3

---

+4 and with OzzFan's comments.

This adds nothing to the project, nor the individuals crunching for it.

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

I am sure this was posted here rather than the humour thread in the Cafe by mistake....
Right?

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

It never occurred to me that someone might actually want to cheat.

For what...a higher RAC? Yeash. If you want to 'cheat' buy an i7 and a matched pair of 590's and kick out a huge RAC...generated by doing actual science.

---

Executive Director GPU Users Group Inc. -
brad@gpuug.org

It never occurred to me that someone might actually want to cheat.

For what...a higher RAC? Yeash. If you want to 'cheat' buy an i7 and a matched pair of 590's and kick out a huge RAC...generated by doing actual science.

Oh, believe me....
Back in the day there was cheating of various kinds going on just for the sake of the ol' RAC.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Mark is correct (as usual). Some of the cheating was sort of ingenious. Some people take this as a challenge. Some are even concerned about their RAC.

Takes all kinds...

---

I'll agree with the trend seen in this thread...not a good idea.

---

Mark is correct.

Cheating went from the mild (selecting low Angle Range WUs and aborting all high angle range ones) to the very deceitful and difficult to prove.

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

I find the idea so daft i am not going to comment on it.
Err
Woops :¬)

And, in all fairness, I should say that Silent Observer may not have realized some of the ramifications of what he proposed. And we should not belittle him for posting a perfectly honest and politely proposed idea.

Some such ideas and proposals do bear fruit at times.

So I hope he was not offended by my offhand dismissal of it in my earlier post.

Sorry, and please do not remain Silent.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster