I joined several new projects awhile ago. Their point totals are completely different...one over 2 million, a couple below 1 million, for example.
I joined the projects all within the same hour, and did not favor one over another AFAIK.
Why the different totals?

Each project awards points at whatever rate it wants to. They do not agree, even if they should. We generally call it creitscrew as expecially with SETI it seems the more you do the lower the credit awarded.

Sort of like a slaesperson where if they really do well their quotas are raised before their commisions kick in.

---

SETI@home classic workunits 4,019
SETI@home classic CPU time 34,348 hours

I joined several new projects awhile ago. Their point totals are completely different...one over 2 million, a couple below 1 million, for example.
I joined the projects all within the same hour, and did not favor one over another AFAIK.
Why the different totals?

Because one of the fundamental principles of BOINC - that the basic unit of credit, the 'cobblestone', represented a real-world measurement of work done - was badly handled by a coding change about 8 years ago.

As a result, project administrators felt free to set their own levels of credit award, and some of the weaker ones allowed themselves to be pressurised into awarding more and more and more credit.

You'll have found the gollum mines where completely unreal credit awards are paid. SETI@Home is sticking with the 'official' mechanism, flawed as it is. I think (though others may have other opinions) that Einstein@Home makes the best attempt to stick to the original definition.