On something Seti could have done is hire Crunch3r and Trux to do an enhanced app and client, And support an optimized setup like is done in Einstein, Einstein hired a guy named akosf to do just that

Akosf was releasing reverse-engineered optimized Windows science apps long before he was hired by Einstein.

Starting a science app from scratch is something completely different.
Same with a BOINC client.

I've read here in Seti that the under 5.11 the Credits were higher, Yet when 5.12 came out they suddenly dropped and that the DEVs are supposedly looking at the problem.

The only problem there seems to be is that people with a lot of credit and lots of RAC, who ran ultra optimized clients and ultra calibrated Boinc versions, see their crunch times go up. This hacks into the credit per hour and thus in your RAC.

No explanation of why this is happening is good enough. Angle Range, variable deadlines, no more credits based on benchmarking, more science per result. No!!! It's credits that the project revolves around, nothing else. Or so it would seem.

And so, if we can't crunch 48 results per 24 hours on Seti anymore, why not go over to a project that can? That'll teach them!

---

It is also interesting that no one with an opposing view of this has an RAC of over 5000!

According to your line of reasoning regarding the SETI.USA/SETI.Germany situation, we ‘small fry’ ought to be the most upset by the change, because now it’ll be that much harder for us to catch up with the ‘big fish’. Or are you just asserting that our opinions are worth less than yours because you’ve contributed more crunching than we have?

Actually what I am stating is that all those with the opposing view are not power users. So, where will you all be once all those of us "big fish" as you say leave? If all the power crunchers leave, say those with an RAC of 15,000 or more, just how long do you think it would take to get any work validated. But I'm guessing that the gripes under the cut credits of v5.12 go even farther down say, those with 9,000+ RAC. Those people are obviously crunching for competition and CREDIT. There, I've said it. That most PROFANE of all words in the English language. The "C" word. CREDIT. There, I've said it again. What happens to a project that treats it's top participants like pariahs. Well, I guess you'll soon find out.

Regards, Daniel.

Hi,

sorry if I'm not telling anything new. It's hard to keep your reading updated ...

Jack Gulley wrote:

Lets compare:

Apples(4.18) to Apples(5.12)

If I do understand various postings correctly this has already been done. The average granted credit per hour of an standard 4.18 application is nearly the same as of an standard 5.12 application (using a standard Boinc client) -- Disclaimer: I haven't tested it. I cannot tell if it is true.

The "problem" is that optimizations done by Crunch3r & Co. found their way into the new standard client. As a result further optimizations aren't as effective as they were with the 4.18 application because 5.12 is already optimized in some degree. This leads to a lower credit per hour rate of 5.12 if you are comparing the optimized applications.

But this leads to the ultimative question again: What are "fair" credits? Is it fair if the standard systems are getting the same credits per hour like before? Is it fair if optimized clients are getting the same credits per hour like before? Is it fair if one project is granting much more credits per hour than another project?

The person who solves this problem in an appropriate manner will have 500,000 new friends ...

SargeD wrote:

As I said in my post, I based it on the returns I get on my WUs. If the majority of machines were not optimized I would see more times where I get much less GC than CC, but that is not what I am seeing.

*Because* the majority runs standard applications with standard boinc clients you got your CC. Keep in mind: the "optimized" boinc clients were only needed to bring the underclaimed CC caused by the optimized science applications back to where it should be (if it was 24 or 32 is another question ...). Without any optimization there wasn't any underclaiming (well, in most cases).

Regards,
Carsten

And would someone please tell me why crunching PURELY for CREDIT is somehow BAD??? There are those that ARE here JUST for credit. But what you don't or more to the point, CAN'T accept, is that the "greedy credit whores" are the ones who are actually doing the MOST science. Isn't THAT ironic!!! Take away their motivation for crunching, and the bottom line is that it HURTS the SCIENCE, because there won't be many hosts left DOING any science. The project management should be thinking about that, and so should all of YOU.

Regards, Daniel.

It is also interesting that no one with an opposing view of this has an RAC of over 5000!

According to your line of reasoning regarding the SETI.USA/SETI.Germany situation, we ‘small fry’ ought to be the most upset by the change, because now it’ll be that much harder for us to catch up with the ‘big fish’. Or are you just asserting that our opinions are worth less than yours because you’ve contributed more crunching than we have?

Actually what I am stating is that all those with the opposing view are not power users. So, where will you all be once all those of us "big fish" as you say leave? If all the power crunchers leave, say those with an RAC of 15,000 or more, just how long do you think it would take to get any work validated. But I'm guessing that the gripes under the cut credits of v5.12 go even farther down say, those with 9,000+ RAC. Those people are obviously crunching for competition and CREDIT. There, I've said it. That most PROFANE of all words in the English language. The "C" word. CREDIT. There, I've said it again. What happens to a project that treats it's top participants like pariahs. Well, I guess you'll soon find out.

Regards, Daniel.

... and my statement is: if credit is suddenly dropped, on the same day, by 50%, for everyone, what difference does it make?

We're talking about racing. Autos race at 200 miles/hour, while a horse race is closer to 35 miles/hour -- but horse racing survives, because all you need is a difference in speed.

---

... and my statement is: if credit is suddenly dropped, on the same day, by 50%, for everyone, what difference does it make?

It looks like you're going to find out. But you're not going to like the answer.

As I said, "And would someone please tell me why crunching PURELY for CREDIT is somehow BAD??? There are those that ARE here JUST for credit. But what you don't or more to the point, CAN'T accept, is that the "greedy credit whores" are the ones who are actually doing the MOST science. Isn't THAT ironic!!! Take away their motivation for crunching, and the bottom line is that it HURTS the SCIENCE, because there won't be many hosts left DOING any science. The project management should be thinking about that, and so should all of YOU."

Regards, Daniel.

We're talking about racing. Autos race at 200 miles/hour, while a horse race is closer to 35 miles/hour -- but horse racing survives, because all you need is a difference in speed.

How many car races do you see at ESPN vs. Horse races? I don't want to see a great Project like S@H become an obscure 3rd. class science program.

My point is: the 4.18 was inneficient to use CPU time, and some users found a VALID way to improve their donation. Now, the new app is better, so optimization is less dramatic.
Instead of granting more credit per hour, because the new app is doing more science per hour, we are receiving less credit per the science.

---

You need to look back farther. Since the enhanced was released many people have pulled the plug on optimized clients (using the term as was explained to me earlier), so of course it would be as you say. But go back before enhanced was released and you will see that I am right.

Highly unlikely.
As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, most people download the software, set it up & then mostly forget about it. Optimised clients are generally only used by those that are in it for the competition. While they have a large total number of machines, they would be only a small percentage of the overall number of users.

Hehehe, you can say that but you really ought to look at the numbers first. Since all of the teams that are into competition encourage their members to optimize (and that is a larger number than you may think), there are many more optimized systems than you may think. As a matter of fact, one of the ways I attract new members to my team is telling them about the optimized clients and apps. Besides, it is the large number of optimized machines that I was talking about in the first place. They far outnumbered the unoptimized before enhanced and therefor most of the time you got the higher credit granted.

---

... and my statement is: if credit is suddenly dropped, on the same day, by 50%, for everyone, what difference does it make?

We're talking about racing. Autos race at 200 miles/hour, while a horse race is closer to 35 miles/hour -- but horse racing survives, because all you need is a difference in speed.

And you never see race car drivers racing a horse. If you told one he had to then he would laugh in your face and walk away.

---

... and my statement is: if credit is suddenly dropped, on the same day, by 50%, for everyone, what difference does it make?

It looks like you're going to find out. But you're not going to like the answer.

As I said, "And would someone please tell me why crunching PURELY for CREDIT is somehow BAD??? There are those that ARE here JUST for credit. But what you don't or more to the point, CAN'T accept, is that the "greedy credit whores" are the ones who are actually doing the MOST science. Isn't THAT ironic!!! Take away their motivation for crunching, and the bottom line is that it HURTS the SCIENCE, because there won't be many hosts left DOING any science. The project management should be thinking about that, and so should all of YOU."

Regards, Daniel.

I do not agree with those who say that crunching for credit is bad.

I just think you're all taking this way too personally -- as if it was done strictly to alienate those who have a high RAC.

It was done because alot of people claimed 50 and got 20 and were understandably unhappy. It was done to bring claimed and granted credit into line.

If fewer credits are given per unit of computing, then each credit is more valuable -- and the race is still a race even if the numbers are smaller.

---

We're talking about racing. Autos race at 200 miles/hour, while a horse race is closer to 35 miles/hour -- but horse racing survives, because all you need is a difference in speed.

How many car races do you see at ESPN vs. Horse races? I don't want to see a great Project like S@H become an obscure 3rd. class science program.

ESPN shows what they show because advertisers pay them. Car companies like to buy advertising during car races.

---

My point is: the 4.18 was inneficient to use CPU time, and some users found a VALID way to improve their donation.

Not only did they find a way to improve crunching speed, but their techniques show up in the latest client -- and we are all better off because of it.

... but it does tend to level the field a bit.

---

... and my statement is: if credit is suddenly dropped, on the same day, by 50%, for everyone, what difference does it make?

We're talking about racing. Autos race at 200 miles/hour, while a horse race is closer to 35 miles/hour -- but horse racing survives, because all you need is a difference in speed.

And you never see race car drivers racing a horse. If you told one he had to then he would laugh in your face and walk away.

Just like you wouldn't see a cricket player on a basketball court. Different game.

All you need to have a race is a (potential) difference in speed.

---

I'm one of those who had an RAC above 10k but dropped to the 7k range...
I won't get into the debate one way or another about what's the fairest way to calculate credits or not. I do believe however that immediately threatening to leave with your fleet of crunchers unless changes are made is entirely the wrong way of enticing the Berkeley scientists that they should make a change. If you truly believe that the credit situation is too skewed in the other direction as the pendulum swings, then present your stats, evidence, and other information backing your case....then give the Seti folk time to examine, digest, and square things away. I may like credits as much as any other high/mid flyer, but Seti@Home's mission isn't credit giving. I also know that they understand that Credit giving is what makes this fun for the competitors out there or else they wouldn't have implemented a credit system in the first place. I understand that and don't mind that it'll take time for them to figure this out as the transition occurs. One week, especially in May when Universities tend to have graduations, vacations starting, etc. isn't long enough for them to capture the important opinions of all involved.

I'm as upset as anyone that my RAC is on a downward spiral...but I know that I'm sticking with the project, continuing to contribute to the science, and hoping that the situation will be normalized by the powers that be over the next month (or however long it takes).

---

I do not agree with those who say that crunching for credit is bad.

I just think you're all taking this way too personally -- as if it was done strictly to alienate those who have a high RAC.

It was done because alot of people claimed 50 and got 20 and were understandably unhappy. It was done to bring claimed and granted credit into line.

If fewer credits are given per unit of computing, then each credit is more valuable -- and the race is still a race even if the numbers are smaller.

And that could just have easily been done without reducing the overall credit granted for the amount of work done. Someone earlier stated they could have used any number as the base. Why not use a number that kept the granted credit at or very near the current credit per hour level rather than reducing it? I have no problem with making the granted credit closer to the same as claimed, but they did not have to reduce the overall amount as much as they did.

---

How many car races do you see at ESPN vs. Horse races? I don't want to see a great Project like S@H become an obscure 3rd. class science program.

Well, that is exactly what's going to happen when all the top participants are treated like dirt and told that they are not wanted or needed, because their motivation happens to be for the credits. Those who crunch for credits are doing equally VALID science, at an awesome rate. I was told that no one "asked" me to dedicate 23 machines to Seti. This is true. Combined, we "credit mongers" have provided MILLIONS of DOLLARS worth of equipment for UCB, on which to DO their science, to say NOTHING about the electric bills we incur as a result. Without all of those who crunch for credit, NONE of this would have been possible. If you take away the "credit monger's" motivation for crunching, you'll completely remove them from the equasion. Then, Seti ultimately DOES degenerate into a 3rd class science project. Or worse.

Regards, Daniel.

And you never see race car drivers racing a horse. If you told one he had to then he would laugh in your face and walk away.

Someone who never watched Top Gear. :)

---

I'm one of those who had an RAC above 10k but dropped to the 7k range...
I won't get into the debate one way or another about what's the fairest way to calculate credits or not. I do believe however that immediately threatening to leave with your fleet of crunchers unless changes are made is entirely the wrong way of enticing the Berkeley scientists that they should make a change. If you truly believe that the credit situation is too skewed in the other direction as the pendulum swings, then present your stats, evidence, and other information backing your case....then give the Seti folk time to examine, digest, and square things away. I may like credits as much as any other high/mid flyer, but Seti@Home's mission isn't credit giving. I also know that they understand that Credit giving is what makes this fun for the competitors out there or else they wouldn't have implemented a credit system in the first place. I understand that and don't mind that it'll take time for them to figure this out as the transition occurs. One week, especially in May when Universities tend to have graduations, vacations starting, etc. isn't long enough for them to capture the important opinions of all involved.

I'm as upset as anyone that my RAC is on a downward spiral...but I know that I'm sticking with the project, continuing to contribute to the science, and hoping that the situation will be normalized by the powers that be over the next month (or however long it takes).

---

I'm one of those who had an RAC above 10k but dropped to the 7k range...
I won't get into the debate one way or another about what's the fairest way to calculate credits or not. I do believe however that immediately threatening to leave with your fleet of crunchers unless changes are made is entirely the wrong way of enticing the Berkeley scientists that they should make a change. If you truly believe that the credit situation is too skewed in the other direction as the pendulum swings, then present your stats, evidence, and other information backing your case....then give the Seti folk time to examine, digest, and square things away. I may like credits as much as any other high/mid flyer, but Seti@Home's mission isn't credit giving. I also know that they understand that Credit giving is what makes this fun for the competitors out there or else they wouldn't have implemented a credit system in the first place. I understand that and don't mind that it'll take time for them to figure this out as the transition occurs. One week, especially in May when Universities tend to have graduations, vacations starting, etc. isn't long enough for them to capture the important opinions of all involved.

I'm as upset as anyone that my RAC is on a downward spiral...but I know that I'm sticking with the project, continuing to contribute to the science, and hoping that the situation will be normalized by the powers that be over the next month (or however long it takes).

Well, I initially just tried to start a free discussion on the issue. Then I was accused of cheating, then I was told that I had to "rethink my motivation" for being here, and that it wouldn't matter if I left, because I'm a "credit monger", so I DID. I rethought my motivation. And I decided that since my "science" isn't GOOD ENOUGH for all you altruists out there, that fine. I'll just leave. If I'm not wanted or needed by this project, then so be it. I'll wait until I can no longer get 4.18 work, and then I'll be gone. The problem for you, is that quite a few other top crunchers have stated that they too will be leaving, and thus the Exodus begins.

Regards, Daniel.