First of all I preface this with a statement that this is not a complaint.
Second I truly believe distributed computing is brilliant.
Prior to last Nov when AP V6 was up and APs were available my RAC was a pretty steady 10K.
If I could get a suitable supply of V7s it would be apx 8K but as it is a diet of only MBs I expect 5K.
It would be nice to fix the credit thing but in either case I shall crunch on.
Another thing is we have been going for 16 years and have processed a lot of data I feel ntpckr should be run, hell we may have already found "it" but we haven't looked to see.

---

Another thing is we have been going for 16 years and have processed a lot of data I feel ntpckr should be run, hell we may have already found "it" but we haven't looked to see.

Wait, are you saying that all the data we crunch is not checked for persistent signals? I know that the ntpckr isn't running but I thought it's done the "old" way.

---

So what is counting the most, total credit, or your join date at this project?

12 years with me and between 6 and 7 million in total credit.

I did not mention it too much earlier on, but when doing so making a point that at times science becomes more or less of no value.

Doing science, I meant to say. Science on its own is of course a thing of value.

...It would be nice to fix the credit.

There's a number of long and involved stories behind explorations there I won't go into again, but suffice it to say there are some fundamental engineering mistakes behind neither application delivering credit normalised around the cobblestone scale, as would be expected from the creditnew whitepaper. It's also pretty erratic, with typical variance exceeding +/-30% payout for the same workload, making it not a very good comparison of host to host etc, as we know as users.

That's all connected to the time estimates which we know can be wacky and unresponsive to change from time to time. (control system instability)

There is a disconnect between the users and the (Boinc) developers, the reasons for which should probably be looked at by someone at some stage. I don't have the answers there, but in future applications will certainly print the reference credit, 'true' estimate before start of run, and final times/efficiencies with various relevant stats in stderr as a tool. As these figures drive the estimate and credit mechanism, no reason the numbers should come up much different, even without the quorum, should they ?

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

As I occasionally say over at CPDN, where the scientific research is (shall we say) subject to some political dissent: it would be nice to get the maths right for credit. It would make it less easy for nay-sayers to say "if they can't even get the credit right, why should we believe what they claim about the climate, either?"

As I occasionally say over at CPDN, where the scientific research is (shall we say) subject to some political dissent: it would be nice to get the maths right for credit. It would make it less easy for nay-sayers to say "if they can't even get the credit right, why should we believe what they claim about the climate, either?"

lol, I can see how that would be a problem.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

Another thing is we have been going for 16 years and have processed a lot of data I feel ntpckr should be run, hell we may have already found "it" but we haven't looked to see.

Wait, are you saying that all the data we crunch is not checked for persistent signals? I know that the ntpckr isn't running but I thought it's done the "old" way.

Can anybody comment on this pls? Is the data checked for the kind of signals we are looking for or not?

---

Another thing is we have been going for 16 years and have processed a lot of data I feel ntpckr should be run, hell we may have already found "it" but we haven't looked to see.

Wait, are you saying that all the data we crunch is not checked for persistent signals? I know that the ntpckr isn't running but I thought it's done the "old" way.

Can anybody comment on this pls? Is the data checked for the kind of signals we are looking for or not?

From what I've worked out reading thro threads on here there are 2 "nitpickers" 1 is "public " that shows on the SSP page that has hardly ever been run ( maybe once or twice) but there is a second that we cant "see" that does run and looks at the results . In my opinion that's the one with a feed to certain A-HOLE agency's in the USA ( C.I.A / N.S.A ) .
I'm not in the tin foil hat brigade but you got to be stupid to think something like that wont happen and if we do discover the signal il put money on Dr Korpela getting a "visit" from them agency's before he's able to say that proof has been found

The last I recall hearing ... nitpicker had some code issues that needed to be resolved. And I sure they don't want to stress the databases too much as they rebuild them.

I would bet they have a test system running checking their code, but nothing serious now.

---

Hi, I'm new to this from the 13th June. I just noticed that the numbers of my 'valid' results went down by one, and with it my overall credit number...does anyone know why this happens please, or is it just a glitch it the system ? . I mean once something's been validated that's it right ?

For seti@home that is

Hi, I'm new to this from the 13th June. I just noticed that the numbers of my 'valid' results went down by one, and with it my overall credit number...does anyone know why this happens please, or is it just a glitch it the system ? . I mean once something's been validated that's it right ?

After 24 hours the results are cleaned the task aint lost its just not able to be seen by us after that time , its normal nothing to worry about :-)

Thank you, but surely my overall credit and RAC shouldn't go down as a result? It has, it said 197 now it's 184 ? thanks :-)

Do you mean RAC (recent average credit) or the total score?
The total credit NEVER goes down.

Your RAC will go up and down as tasks are validated vs. those pending, your credit won't go down. ;-)

Cheers.

Thank you, but surely my overall credit and RAC shouldn't go down as a result? It has, it said 197 now it's 184 ? thanks :-)

Your credit shouldn't go down but your rac will look like a roller coaster ride , think its all to do with what type of tasks , how many get validated or how many are waiting for the wingman to report , my rac graph looks like a mountain range peaks and troughs . Its totally normal just go with the flow :-)

Yes sorry, total credit not down, just the RAC, and it went down from 197 to 184 at the same time i noticed the valid results had gone down by one..thanks for the answers :-)

Thank you, but surely my overall credit and RAC shouldn't go down as a result? It has, it said 197 now it's 184 ? thanks :-)

RAC can certainly go down as well as up - it stands for 'Recent Average Credit', and tasks which were completed a long time ago contribute less and less to that 'Recent'.

But the overall total credit should never go down - what you've got, you keep.

Edit - I see you got your answer while I was drafting - sorry, delayed by a phone call.

But overall, in general, if you're doing a fair bit of work everyday, the RAC should be an upward trend ? :-)