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..

Do we, the power users, have to go on strike to prove our point? That would be very interesting if everyone who crunches for credit disabled their network access on their entire fleets at the same time for 48 hours. Then do a "study" to see how much work gets reported during the strike. Since Berkeley was the focal point of the "Free Speech" Movement back in the '60's, I'm sure this should be right up their alley.

As I said before, read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. To anyone who has, you'll know exactly why I feel the way I do.

Regards, Daniel.

@ Daniel - I support you 100%...Tell me when. I am sure our machines are considered to be of no loss by many. Let me know when and I can disable my fleet.

---

This is only a test...

Do we, the power users, have to go on strike to prove our point? That would be very interesting if everyone who crunches for credit disabled their network access on their entire fleets at the same time for 48 hours. Then do a "study" to see how much work gets reported during the strike. Since Berkeley was the focal point of the "Free Speech" Movement back in the '60's, I'm sure this should be right up their alley.

As I said before, read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. To anyone who has, you'll know exactly why I feel the way I do.

Regards, Daniel.

@ Daniel - I support you 100%...Tell me when. I am sure our machines are considered to be of no loss by many. Let me know when and I can disable my fleet.

This sounds like a very interesting experiment. I'd really like to know exactly what the impact would be.

Question: How will you respond if you DO go on strike, and the stats show only a small bump in the returns???

Question: How will you respond if you DO go on strike, and the stats show only a small bump in the returns???

I did a quik check at Boincstats and the top 0.02% users (based on monthly average) respond for 12% of the project output.

---

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=322051161

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=328721428

explain to me how I did any less work..CPU Times are within 200 seconds yet the credit claimed is nearly 1/3

I dont even understand why this is an issue...its not that hard to fix...its not like we are saying the entire core is broken and the project needs a total rework, its as simple as changing a multiplier, and I am in this for both the Stats and the Science, don't belive me...I also crunch Hash Clash.

---

I'm not in it for the science...only the competition.

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=322051161

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=328721428

explain to me how I did any less work..CPU Times are within 200 seconds yet the credit claimed is nearly 1/3

I dont even understand why this is an issue...its not that hard to fix...its not like we are saying the entire core is broken and the project needs a total rework, its as simple as changing a multiplier, and I am in this for both the Stats and the Science, don't belive me...I also crunch Hash Clash.

The curve of AR/time is a pig, see 5.11 Competion times that was posted on the Beta site. The devs do say they might not have the curve correct or got the credits calculation based on that curve right. But they are reviewing the situation as more results are returned before adjusting the formula.

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=322051161

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=328721428

explain to me how I did any less work..CPU Times are within 200 seconds yet the credit claimed is nearly 1/3

I dont even understand why this is an issue...its not that hard to fix...its not like we are saying the entire core is broken and the project needs a total rework, its as simple as changing a multiplier, and I am in this for both the Stats and the Science, don't belive me...I also crunch Hash Clash.

Evidently the combinaation of the optimized 4.18 application used and the 5.2.7 core client were over reporting credits. If you were to look at the wu associated with the high result you showed you would see that one of the results returned was in line with your credits. This result used the proper 5.2.13 core client which is the proper one to use for the proper reporting of credits. It just so happened that this is a case of two results being returned that were crunched with over-reporting clients and they overrode the results that were correct for the wu. If two of the reported results were crunched with the proper applications you would not be seeing this and complaining about it because it would have granted nearly the same credits that you report in the new wu. If you will look at the other results for the wu's you mentioned you will see this. Also check the other results for the enhanced wu and you will see that the claimed credits and granted credits were only a few hundredths of a credit difference regardlesss of the computer they were crunched on. Now let me ask a question. Is this fair or would you rather have the "pure luck" credit situation you saw in the first example? I'm sure in this particular case you would say the "pure luck" example because just by sheer luck the results were granted an extraordinarily high amount of credits! However if the results were crunched with the proper 5.2.13 app you would say that it doesn't matter since they would be in line with the others! (In that case, if your computer were the only one over-reporting credits and you reported 30 something credits and were only granted 18, I'm sure you would holler just as loud!) Not trying to single out any one person here, but all I've read in this and several other threads is complaints that really boils down to the fact that you can't use applications which can be "calibrated" for the credits you want to get. Instead the credits are issued according to actual work done regardless of the computer or operating system. Nothing you as a cruncher can do affects the credits reported. This is why the system was chosen. As an example, I have a p3 500mhz computer running Linux and it consistently reports credits that are within a few *hundredths* if not *exactly* the same as others reported by even the fastest computers. Now I call this "fair"! Not that the faster computers claim more credits (using the old app)! I know you are going to say "Well I have a faster computer, I should get more credits". But this is just not true. You should *not* get more credits for crunching the exact same wu that I crunch just because your computers are faster than mine. You will get more credits in the long run because your faster computers can crunch more wu's per day than I can. I call this "fair", not the fact that you could claim more credits than I could by crunching the same wu with a faster computer and with applications that let you misrepresent the amount of work actually done by the computer.
Yes, the "competition" is still here, it's just changed form. Now instead of seeing what application combination you can run to get the most claimed credits for the same work, you have to actually do the same work for the same credits, but if you do more work in the same amount of time you will earn more credits. So yes, you "power crunchers" may see a change in the amount of granted credits per work unit, but you must also look at all the factors involved before you go hollering that the system is unfair. Now everyone that crunches a wu claims the same or nearly the same credit. No more "pot luck" credits being issued. Is this not fair? Next, credits depend entirely upon the amount of work done, not arbitrary "benchmarks" that can be manipulated to change the reported credit. Is this not fair? And now the system is reporting credits that are in line with the standard applications issued to everyone and in line with other projects. Is this not fair?

---

Jim

Some people plan their life out and look back at the wealth they've had.
Others live life day by day and look back at the wealth of experiences and enjoyment they've had.

@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....

People have free choice as to why they crunch, when they cruch, and if they crunch. I don't advocate anyone being excluded from the project, and I don't see where anyone is being excluded.

However, if someone is unhappy with the way credits are granted, it's their choice if they no longer wish to support a project. That's each individual's right, to do with their computer's resources as they see fit.

However, it's my right to have the opinion that it's rediculous for a person to support a project soley because it grants credit in a manner that person approves of.

---

XaaK

Great post Jim-R !!!

---