for weeks I am processing only 2003 wu's. do seti discriminate user's with wu freshnes or something? like for europe and usa only fresh telescopic shots for enabling them first et contact to others only 2003 to 100BC?!?!?

---

Mandtugai!

No, there is no geography-based conspiracy.

Seti simply has a lot of data to crunch spanning several years.

---

-----

but anyone does not feel good to reprocess someones processed junk (sorry) data or very old data for weeks!

---

Mandtugai!

It's not junk data at all. All work units are potentially important.

---

-----

Matt Lebofsky picks what tapes go to the splitters, and this post describes his process.

It also explains why 2003 is a "good year."

---

Orgil,
Why would you think that "old" data is "no good"?

All the old data is, is data that has not been processed yet.
Age has no relevence regarding how "important" the data might be.

---

Foamy is "Lord and Master".
(Oh, + some Classic WUs too.)

They are all good, for old data it is old when they make the tape. If there is a signal from ET it could have been sent 1,000 years ago or only 50 years ago, but still old. Radio waves travel at the speed of light, but other stars are so far away that it takes many years for a signal to reach Earth.

---

Pizza@Home Rays Place Rays place Forums

then how about a someone who sometime observes own wu processing and notices that he/she is doing pretty much fresh telescopic shots most of the time but the other notices own wu remindes few years prior life like 2003? i mean there are might be two types of participants already born and they do not want to debate this fair distribution of fresher wu.

i am recently curious that do not they send fresher wu's to mainframe and supercomputer(or perhaps more up to date hardware of pc's) using of participants (if that is realy not discrimination) that they are realy far more effeicient and "encourage" others with a wu's that pretty much termed as "important"?!?!?

anyone who sits on the bottleneck of the knowledgebase able to term a wu "important" and not important.

---

Mandtugai!

Fine. You won't listen to reason.

Yes, there is a conspiracy. People in Mongolia get old work units. You are not as important as the rest of us so you get old work units, since it is scientific fact that aliens would not be found in 2003 telescopic data.

You have uncovered the secret.



(My 2 work units are from 2003 - I must have a distant ancestor from Mongolia!)

---

-----

I bring you this from the "Server Status" page:

Splitter status
Tape name Host Last block split
(splitters are all currently offline)
Tapes in splitter queue:
03my04aa -May 3 2004
03oc03ab -Oct 3 2003
06no03aa -Nov 6 2003
08no03ab -Nov 8 2003
08oc03aa -Oct 8 2003
09dc03aa -Dec 9 2003
16oc03ab -Oct 16 2003
19oc03aa -Oct 19 2003
28oc03aa -Oct 28 2003
28oc03ab -Oct 28 2003

These were the last tapes in the splitters, so everyone is getting work from the same tapes. Note: All but one tape is from 2003

does this answer your question?

tony

[edit] I remember when there were only three splitters and I think I remember only two (memory fuzzy).

hi mmciastro

from what url did you get this information?

Splitter status
Tape name Host Last block split
(splitters are all currently offline)
Tapes in splitter queue:
03my04aa -May 3 2004
03oc03ab -Oct 3 2003
06no03aa -Nov 6 2003
08no03ab -Nov 8 2003
08oc03aa -Oct 8 2003
09dc03aa -Dec 9 2003
16oc03ab -Oct 16 2003
19oc03aa -Oct 19 2003
28oc03aa -Oct 28 2003
28oc03ab -Oct 28 2003

MattDavis, I realy respect your long term participation in this project and can I ask one question from you: as your random or regular observance what percentage of your wu's were fresher and what % older like 1-2 years?

---

Mandtugai!

My work units are always a mix of 2003-2005. Think about it - why would 2003 units be "junk"? Isn't there just as good a chance that a 2003 unit picks up an alien signal as a 2005 unit?

---

-----

hi mmciastro

from what url did you get this information?

From the main page, look up and find "server status" under the "about" catagory, click on it and you can see the current state of the servers and tapes.

have fun

tony

hereis a direct link to it.

any common sense would recognize 2003 identifies old, and September 2005 identifies new. sorry there are not few newer members do not know that there are some old untouched wu's and 2 of the 1999 starter veterans worry about some type of importantces.

I guess this message area is simple idea exchange place for people who have closer tech based interest so i will prefer to ignore any blames for my being active about an issue digging.

were there any opinions told/offered from project developer or a member that any procedure expected about a right timely based wu distribution?

---

Mandtugai!

were there any opinions told/offered from project developer or a member that any procedure expected about a right timely based wu distribution?

As was posted in an earlier message, Matt Lebovsky, a Project Developer, posted this message about the process of handling data tapes, and in particular the backlog of 2003 tapes.

MJ

---

I think it was only 2 to 3 Mo. ago that I saw some 2002 files mixed in with the ones that I was doing. 2003 is newer than that was.

---

Pizza@Home Rays Place Rays place Forums

Orgil, Matt Lebofsky is the guy who loads that tape on the splitters and he said:

71) Message boards : : Number crunching : 2003 Must Have Been A Great Year For Aquiring Raw Data
Posted 82 days ago by Matt Lebofsky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. I must have answered this in three other threads pertaining to this same topic already. But perhaps let me add a little more info this time that may shed light on the '03 data.

Data tapes come from Arecibo and end up in a pile next to my desk. We have, on average, a backlog of about 6 months' worth of tapes to split into workunits. There's no care taken to keep these tapes in chronological order (there's no need to, and there's better things to worry about). When it comes time to make more workunits, I grab a random tape.

This stuff I already mentioned elsewhere. BUT! There's more: We do actually check the quality of the data before throwing it into the splitter - we don't want to make a bunch of workunits with excessive RFI, or machine noise because the telescope was under maintenance, etc. Basically every two hours we compare the current spectrum we are recording against what we'd expect to see, and if it's WAY off, we probably have garbage data (so WAY off that we are positively not throwing out ET signals but obvious earth noise clobbering the relatively quiet noise from space).

Back in 2003 we had our large backlog of data, so we had a chance to be more selective with our tapes, not splitting anything that had the chance of being bad data. So a lot of 2003 tapes never made the cut at that time. Since then, we have determined that perhaps we were being a bit too selective - some of the data checks were failing the same time every day (perhaps this was a reflection of sun position affecting our receiver - I'll leave that up to the real scientists around here to decide). I was also cutting tapes when it failed a data check 1 time out 8, thus "throwing away" 87.5% of good data because 12.5% seemed squirly.

But of course we keep these tapes around, so this data wasn't actually thrown away - just settling to the bottom of my data tape box for later reconsideration.

That's all.

- Matt

By clicking on a users name and then clicking on "posts" you can search out every single thing posted by a user. he says some interesting things.

Does this help?

tony

yes i read Matts reply previously, probably I have to clarify or add a word the other in my previous question of: were there any other opinions told/offered from someone other person that any procedure expected about a right/other timely based wu distribution? I guess we are experiencing some cultural clush thing that in one kind of culture people understands right meaning through skipped word in other they think only they are always right let's correct him something.
so let's drop this [why am I getting old WU's?] subject it is getting realy boring.

---

Mandtugai!

All I can say is that I've stayed out of this thread because I can't understand Orgil's postings - language barrier, I suppose...

As far as "old WUs", there aren't any, they are all equal in potential value, as long as they have not been crunched by both Classic and SETI/BOINC yet.

yes i read Matts reply previously, probably I have to clarify or add a word the other in my previous question of: were there any other opinions told/offered from someone other person that any procedure expected about a right/other timely based wu distribution?

Well, since Matt is the guy who actually loads the tapes, I'm not quite sure why you would want to hear from any other person on that subject. If you don't want to believe what he says, that's up to you.