First off, I think the whole issue of credits, and those complaining about them, is pretty funny. I like getting credit, don't get me wrong, as it's both a recognition of the work I've done for the project, and fosters competition, which is fun in most cases.

However, credits don't get you anything. So, you're getting less credits than you used to. Big deal, so is everyone else. If the project management suddenly doubled the amount of credit they're giving out, it would have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, because everyone's credits would double at the same time.

My rac was over 24,000, and now it's dropping probably to the 10k range. I don't care, as everyone else's will do the same. My fast computers, once things settle down, will still be in the top 20, I'll still be gaining on the same people as I was.

What I can't understand even more is people and teams that aren't switching to enhanced until they absolutely have to simply because their credits will drop.

Xaak
Proud member of BroadbandReports.com Team Starfire

@Daniel Schaalma,
Bud I am all for your 48 hour protest. I have some friends on another team who are also not happy with this and will pass the word to them as well. Just name a date and time and I am sure they can get the majority of their teammates to participate.

If we are going to do this, in all fairness to the project, it will be best to wait for at least a couple of weeks to give the project time to settle out after just switching over the last of the splitters to enhanced. After things settle out for a couple of weeks, then we can select a date, and at 00:00 UTC on that date, disable our network access for 48 hours. Then a study can be done just to see the potential loss of everyone who cares about credit. The work processing will still go on, so nothing will be lost, and the important thing is that such a protest not do any harm to the project. But those to whom credits are important, will withold their results and communications for 48 hours, so everyone can see just how much work is done by the people that are very concerned about the drop in our credits. In the mean time, I'll work on a mission statement for the protest.

UC at Berkeley was the focal point of the "Free Speech" Movement and non-violent protests, back in the '60's, so this should be right up their alley!

Regards, Daniel.

Post on 'Your concerns about Enhanced' by Eric Korpela in the stickies.

Andy

Yes, but even with an SE result, on an optimized client, it can still vary between 45 minutes and 17 hours. Depending on AR of the result. And that is something the credit mongers don't like. :)

Thats BS.. it's not that WU's take longer to crunch nor that it's now based on fpop counting... it's about credit has been cut down.

Crunch3r I agree with you! - I also wonder how or why that Ageless - or is that Clueless got to be forum moderator - I thought it was the moderator's job to attempt to keep things civil. Instead he says stupid things like - "theres the door." I wonder if Berkeley knows what thier forum representative is acting like.
And Ageless, if you remove this post for no reason, other than you don't like it, - then shame on you and we should be looking for a new forum moderator.

---

...snip... were calculated on a Sun box that did not reflect the FP characteristics of the most prevalent platforms used in SETI@Home, namely Windows and Intel based PCs (not to alienate Macs or Linux of course, but they also exhibit similar characteristics to the WinTels in this case). The results are credit returns that do not match up with what was intended (optimized or not)....snip...

I retract my previous passing of heresay from other threads about the Sun based calculations... based on Eric's new sticky thread this was obviously a false premise.

I do still stand-by my opinion that Eric and team should still continue to watch the data rolling in related to the Credits earned/given across the different platforms and adjust the credit calculations accordingly. Even if he did test on multiple platforms, the dataset would never have been as big as the wider project now that the 4.18 WUs have run out.

---

It will matter to the projects, and to BOINC, if the level of credits/time for each project is not kept approximately the same. If not people who have no allegance to a project or are pure credit hogs, will switch from project to project, credit whore's or mercenaries in effect.

@Andy, how is being a 'credit hog', 'credit whore' or a 'mercenary' a BAD thing? Does (or should) Berkeley really give a rats ass about *WHY* people crunch as long as they get their work processed for free by people who in reality have a myriad of reasons *why* they devote their Computer's time (and the expenses involved for maintaining those computers) to this or any Distributed Computing Project?

There are 3 distinct groups (imho) involved here:

1. The people who do this purely for the science. No need to announce who you are because you've already said it long and loud enough so that we ALL know who they are.

2. The pure 'credit hog(s)', 'credit whore(s)' or 'mercenaries' who do it for the recognition of their peers, a sense of accomplishment or a sense of entitlement that they are proud of what they do, but not necessairly for the same reasons as those under #1 above....

3. The combination Science Geek AND 'credit whore' who loves the science, devotes large sums of time and $$$ to maintain their fleets and pay the electricity bills each month on the slim chance they will be the ones to find...'ET', yet feels like they deserve some kind of tangible recognition for their efforts..Since they havn't found any ETI's the next best form of recognition is....gasp!....credits/statistics/numbers, etc....

I ask again, does Berkeley really care which of these 3 types they have crunching for them?? I really do doubt that they do since without volunteers (no matter what their reasons are for participating) this project would be a pale shell of what it has been.

Berkeley needs all the volunteers it can get, and if making the credit system under 'enhanced' as favorable as it can be for those who invest their time, energy and money without complaint or expectation of anything in return except for a little recognition via a fair amount of cobbies, keeps them happy and crunching then I say....what's the harm?

Berkeley needs as many of us as it can get more then many of us need Berkeley which is a fact that seems to be all but forgotten in these message boards as of late. Without all of us, who will crunch the work besides the hardcore minority who would never run out of work because there would be so few of them for all the available work?

Making the 'enhanced' credit system more 'participant friendly' will not only make the existing users happy it will make the new users considering this project amongst the many out there take note that seti treats it's userbase fairly which can only be a good thing for all concerned.

Just my.02¢

---

Hi,

There are 3 distinct groups (imho) involved here:

You forgot another group: Those who install the standard Boinc client and the standard science application and then just let it crunch.

*This* group is the majority. The credit calculation has to be adjusted to the majority. Otherwise SETI would claim a wrong amount of credits compared to other projects. And this group hasn't seen any change in their granted credits.

Regards,
Carsten

First off, I think the whole issue of credits, and those complaining about them, is pretty funny. I like getting credit, don't get me wrong, as it's both a recognition of the work I've done for the project, and fosters competition, which is fun in most cases.

However, credits don't get you anything. So, you're getting less credits than you used to. Big deal, so is everyone else. If the project management suddenly doubled the amount of credit they're giving out, it would have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, because everyone's credits would double at the same time.

My rac was over 24,000, and now it's dropping probably to the 10k range. I don't care, as everyone else's will do the same. My fast computers, once things settle down, will still be in the top 20, I'll still be gaining on the same people as I was.

What I can't understand even more is people and teams that aren't switching to enhanced until they absolutely have to simply because their credits will drop.

Xaak

I agree completely. I've been trying to stay out of this whole discussion, but I feel that I need to state my position. The thing is that my RAC did drop a little, but not that much. The reason? I have been spread out over 8 to 10 projects for awhile. Most (8 out of 10) have no optimized client that I can find, so I just crunch away. I saw the optimized clients as a way to return more work to the projects. The credits are nice, but its not that big of a deal. Like Xaak said, everybody is in the same boat.

---

Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station. - Grand Moff Tarkin

First off, I think the whole issue of credits, and those complaining about them, is pretty funny. I like getting credit, don't get me wrong, as it's both a recognition of the work I've done for the project, and fosters competition, which is fun in most cases. However, credits don't get you anything.

@Xaak:

Does this mean then that the people who actually DO get something out of having/wanting credits should be excluded from the project simply because that is the sole reason why they crunch? Remember not everyone is here because they want to be like Jodie Foster in Contact....

I agree completely. I've been trying to stay out of this whole discussion, but I feel that I need to state my position. I saw the optimized clients as a way to return more work to the projects. The credits are nice, but its not that big of a deal. Like Xaak said, everybody is in the same boat.

@ Lord_Vader: Maybe to people like yourself and Xaak who have other motivations for being here that do not solely involve credits this is fine, but why can't you or anyone that thinks along similar lines accept the fact that there are indeed people who solely crunch for the stats, the glory and the admiration of their peers.....?

Should these people be barred from participating in the project solely becaue they are not motivated by "the science" to be here?

Berkeley's getting their work done for free by many of these same people so why can't their presence be tolerated and a compromise found?

OR, is Berkeley becoming 'snobish' in their attitudes that having one group of participants is more desirable then another? If that's the case where will that attitude stop? What's next, economic profiling to insure that participants can afford to run the project....?

To those who are only in it for the credits, why don't you sign up to all projects do a couple of tasks so you can post on their boards.
Then post on each project an advert for your services at x credits/hour or ask for bids above standard BOINC rates to A.N.Other@ISP.com

Let us know how many replies you get.

Andy

To those who are only in it for the credits, why don't you sign up to all projects do a couple of tasks so you can post on their boards.
Then post on each project an advert for your services at x credits/hour or ask for bids above standard BOINC rates to A.N.Other@ISP.com

Let us know how many replies you get.

Andy

And how is being a smartass doing anyone any good?

@Andy, a direct question to you: Do you feel that those who are not in it 'for the science' should be prevented from participating because their motivations for crunching are not as 'pure' as yours might be....?

Nobody is being prevented from participating.

People who crunch just for credit are being re-invited to volunteer, and may wish to re-evaluate their contribution under current circumstances.

If they wish to contribute in the (slightly) changed environment - and why not? - then fine, welcome, the playing field is level and the competition continues as before.

If they don't want to continue, then that's fine too - so long, and thanks for all the fish.

The only question is whether the credit-crunchers are going to adapt to the new project circumstances: the only certain thing is that the project isn't going to adapt to them.

Nobody is being prevented from participating.

I guess you missed Ageless's "Don't let the door hit you on the way out" comments earlier in this thread which he has since retracted..

There is indeed a strong bias here AGAINST those who are pro stats and who have credits as their only motivation..

I guess you have not seen it yet, but you will eventually as that's just the way these boards work these days I guess, I dunno.

I'm just trying to understand both sides as I take no position either way and am asking questions to gain a better understanding of the issues involved on both sides....

ed. spelling

To those who are only in it for the credits, why don't you sign up to all projects do a couple of tasks so you can post on their boards.
Then post on each project an advert for your services at x credits/hour or ask for bids above standard BOINC rates to A.N.Other@ISP.com

Let us know how many replies you get.

Andy

And how is being a smartass doing anyone any good?

@Andy, a direct question to you: Do you feel that those who are not in it 'for the science' should be prevented from participating because their motivations for crunching are not as 'pure' as yours might be....?

No, but those who think that the credits should be in line with those obtained during the 4.18 optimised period, are begining to p... me off.

Andy

Nobody is being prevented from participating.

I guess you missed Ageless's "Don't let the door hit you on the way out" comments earlier in this thread which he has since retracted..

I saw it, and I think I've read every post in this long, tedious and circular argument.

I think it was an unwise and intemperate response to this post where the poster was considering leaving of their own accord - I repeat, not being prevented from participating.

@ Lord_Vader: Maybe to people like yourself and Xaak who have other motivations for being here that do not solely involve credits this is fine, but why can't you or anyone that thinks along similar lines accept the fact that there are indeed people who solely crunch for the stats, the glory and the admiration of their peers.....?

Well, what confuses me is that your peers are dropping too. My RAC is falling, but I am still gaining positions in World Rank (combined boinc and SETI). You still get credits. The problem is that the specialization you made with the optimized clients no longer yields the advantage is once did.

I guess it would be like buying a Toyota Hybrid and then seeing the price of gas drop to $0.25 a gallon. Its unfortunate, but I don't see the need for the anger over it.

---

Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station. - Grand Moff Tarkin

... There is indeed a strong bias here AGAINST those who are pro stats and who have credits as their only motivation..
[...]
I'm just trying to understand both sides as I take no position either way and am asking questions to gain a better understanding of the issues involved on both sides....

It's usually those whom are blindly pro-stats (and blind to the science and fun) that generate all the high heat and angst.

The credits system is a useful 'encouragement' for some. Unfortunately, some take that far too far. Also, the credits are merely an unscientific 'indicator' yet some expect (DEMAND even!) fantastic accuracy despite highly variable hardware setups and operating conditions.

There was much discussion in the past about (accurately) calibrating the entire Boinc-Computer system for each participant on a WU by WU basis following a NIST-like traceability to a golden standard. This is workable but noone has been motivated enough to do anything about it. Cunch3r has come up with a workable 'half-way' solution following on from JM7's DCF work.

Most people that truly 'care' about this project care about the project and the science. That is, helping to search for intelligent signals. All the "credits" are just a noisy irritating distraction...

I'm not against stats, provided that the stats are useful and have some meaning. The present "cobblestones" stats are nothing more than an ego-indicator for those I've seen on these forums.

Please note what is NOT in my sig!

Happy crunchin',

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I made the comment as I was earlier p...'ed off than Andy was. No, I won't delete your post, although I would like it if you also left the personal attacks out of your next posts.

Everyone here with "credit problems" best look at what Eric has explained.

---

OR, is Berkeley becoming 'snobish' in their attitudes that having one group of participants is more desirable then another? If that's the case where will that attitude stop? What's next, economic profiling to insure that participants can afford to run the project....?

Sorry, but from where I sit the only ‘grouping’ I see being done is by those who believe they’re being discriminated against. A recurring theme in the comments of those who are defending the new system is that we’re all in the same boat.

---

A recurring theme in the comments of those who are defending the new system is that we’re all in the same boat.

If this is indeed true then why all the negativity toward those who's sole motivation for contributing to 'the science' is the recognition that comes from seeing stats?

Like it or not, there IS bias toward the "pro-stat" people why else call them 'credit whores', 'credit mongers', mercenaries, etc....etc....???

These comments are coming from people who think that it should be all about the 'science first' and stats second, which is fine but not everyone in the world has the same motivations for crunching as they do....

Can Berkeley really afford to alienate a significantly large portion of the installed userbase for S@H Enhanced who's only motivating factor for investing large sums of $$$ & time simply because they enjoyed the project the way that they wanted to?

Eric K. mentioned in the stickied thread about credit issues that he MAY reconsider bumping up after a few months the granted credit, but only by less then 10%. He is taking a wait and see attitude, but I don't know if the 'non science' crunchers will wait??

I think they should and give it this time to shake it's self out, but some do like the instant gratification of seeing stats...

I can only speak for myself here (I will be around regardless) but it seems like Berkeley is cutting off it's nose to spite it's face by driving these people to other projects (read: out of S@H) by this..