Response to concerns regarding the new credit system.

Message boards : Number crunching : Response to concerns regarding the new credit system.
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 18 · Next

AuthorMessage
Eric Korpela Project Donor
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 1382
Credit: 54,506,847
RAC: 60
United States
Message 308706 - Posted: 17 May 2006, 16:42:32 UTC


Hi Everybody,

We at the project are aware that there are questions and complaints regarding the mechanism that the enhanced client uses to grant credits. We do take these concerns seriously and I will try to adress some of them here.

The first concern seems to be that claimed credit per hour has dropped for fast machines, especially those that use BOINC clients with optimized benchmarking code. That is undoubtedly true. Fast machines were generally claiming more credit per workunit than their slower counterparts. For those using optimized benchmarking code this was doubly so, since they claim more credit per hour than the same machine running a standard BOINC client without doing any more real work per hour. I am not suggesting that this was a deliberate attempt by people to claim more credit than they were due. I believe that in most of the cases this was done to match the BOINC benchmarks to the work done by optimized SETI@home clients.

The second complaint is that a large fraction of users are seeing a large drop in their granted credit per hour. This is not true. I was very careful in attempting to choose a credit per floating point operation (FLOP) that would be credit neutral overall. If there has been a change in average credit per hour it is of order 10%. Future revisions of SETI@home enhanced may have their credit multiplier adjusted in order to maintain parity with credit granted in other projects.

The current multiplier gives 3.35 FLOPs of credit per FLOP actually done. Despite claims to the contrary, this number was not calculated based upon processing times of Sun processors. It was, in fact, calculated based upon the compute times of a large number of machines that were running both the SETI@home and the SETI@home Enhanced beta. The vast majority of these machines were using Intel processors.

Another claim is that this change hurts people who were running optimized SETI@home clients. That is true to some extent, but there isn't a lot I can do about it without being unfair to even more people. The previous versions of SETI@home were not as highly optimized as the enhanced version is. It was relatively easy for optimizers to create versions that would run in a small fraction of the time. It is still possible to create optimized versions of SETI@home enhanced, but the gains will be smaller. So whereas people running optimized version were, in the past, able to boost the credit per hour of their machines by factors of 5 by running optimized versions, now they may only be able to boost their credit per hour by a factor of two. To offset that effect, our credit multiplier would need to be increased to around 8. That would more than double the rate at which everyone gets credit and double the rate at which the project as a whole generates credit. This would be obvious in the statistics, and it would be unfair to other BOINC projects if we were to offer twice the credit per operation that they do.

It has been suggested that I was ordered by David Anderson to reduce the SETI@home credits in order drive people to other BOINC projects. It is a great misunderstanding of our organizational structure to assume that David could order me to do anything, much less something that would hurt the project that pays (at least part of) my salary. I get no salary from the BOINC grants. I have no incentive to drive people away.

Eric
@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)

ID: 308706 · Report as offensive
Hans Dorn
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2262
Credit: 26,448,570
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 308772 - Posted: 17 May 2006, 19:47:45 UTC
Last modified: 17 May 2006, 19:48:24 UTC

Hi Eric, thanks for clearing things up.

There's a nice graph at Team OcUK, showing total stats for seti@home.

There has been no significant change in the last days:




Regards Hans
ID: 308772 · Report as offensive
Profile SargeD@SETI.USA
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 02
Posts: 957
Credit: 3,848,754
RAC: 0
United States
Message 308950 - Posted: 17 May 2006, 23:13:32 UTC - in response to Message 308706.  
Last modified: 17 May 2006, 23:15:28 UTC

[quote]

1. The first concern seems to be that claimed credit per hour has dropped for fast machines, especially those that use BOINC clients with optimized benchmarking code. That is undoubtedly true. Fast machines were generally claiming more credit per workunit than their slower counterparts. For those using optimized benchmarking code this was doubly so, since they claim more credit per hour than the same machine running a standard BOINC client without doing any more real work per hour. I am not suggesting that this was a deliberate attempt by people to claim more credit than they were due. I believe that in most of the cases this was done to match the BOINC benchmarks to the work done by optimized SETI@home clients.
2. The second complaint is that a large fraction of users are seeing a large drop in their granted credit per hour. This is not true. I was very careful in attempting to choose a credit per floating point operation (FLOP) that would be credit neutral overall. If there has been a change in average credit per hour it is of order 10%. Future revisions of SETI@home enhanced may have their credit multiplier adjusted in order to maintain parity with credit granted in other projects.
3. Another claim is that this change hurts people who were running optimized SETI@home clients. That is true to some extent, but there isn't a lot I can do about it without being unfair to even more people. The previous versions of SETI@home were not as highly optimized as the enhanced version is. It was relatively easy for optimizers to create versions that would run in a small fraction of the time. It is still possible to create optimized versions of SETI@home enhanced, but the gains will be smaller. So whereas people running optimized version were, in the past, able to boost the credit per hour of their machines by factors of 5 by running optimized versions, now they may only be able to boost their credit per hour by a factor of two. To offset that effect, our credit multiplier would need to be increased to around 8. That would more than double the rate at which everyone gets credit and double the rate at which the project as a whole generates credit. This would be obvious in the statistics, and it would be unfair to other BOINC projects if we were to offer twice the credit per operation that they do.[/quote}

1. I am having a hard time understanding this. Even using the optimized client, none of my fast machines ever claimed nor were granted more than the 32 (average) credits that were supposed to be the baseline. While many of the slower machines that I saw were claiming 40-44 credits per WU.

2. Again, this is not what most of us are seeing. If this were true there should have been very little if any drop in RAC (once credits started being awarded). However, just the opposite apears to be happening. I have only a few slower machines running enhanced at present, but each of them has a much lower RAC than they had without enhanced.

3. As to this, I have never heard anyone from the other projects complaining about the amount of credit being awarded to Seti participants. If they had an issue why not have them raise their amount of credit rather than Seti decreasing theirs? That would seem more beneficial to all rather than alienating a large portion of your volunteers.

Respectfully
Earl


ID: 308950 · Report as offensive
Profile Pooh Bear 27
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 03
Posts: 3224
Credit: 4,603,826
RAC: 0
United States
Message 309116 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 1:12:26 UTC

Again, this is not what most of us are seeing. If this were true there should have been very little if any drop in RAC (once credits started being awarded). However, just the opposite apears to be happening. I have only a few slower machines running enhanced at present, but each of them has a much lower RAC than they had without enhanced.

People who were using the optimized clients are seeing a drop, because they were getting an inflated rate. If you were using stock client, you'd not see much if any change.


My movie https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/502242
ID: 309116 · Report as offensive
archae86

Send message
Joined: 31 Aug 99
Posts: 909
Credit: 1,582,816
RAC: 0
United States
Message 309160 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 1:51:20 UTC - in response to Message 309116.  


People who were using the optimized clients are seeing a drop, because they were getting an inflated rate. If you were using stock client, you'd not see much if any change.
That is false, as choice of client by a single user had relatively small effect on actual credit granted. The farther away from the central part of the credit claim distribution a client gets, the smaller percentage of its claim delta leaks into actual awards.

What is true is that people using optimized science aps--which includes the overwhelming majority of the power crunchers--are seeing a huge drop in their credit per hour. This is true whether they were using the stock client (and claiming six or eight credits) or any of the higher claiming clients.

I credit Eric with telling truth. If true, his statements imply that overall the considerable majority of previous results were calculated by people using unoptimized science aps. Those folks, when upgrading to enhanced, are suddenly running code far more productive of useful computation per hour than before (because of code improvements--perhaps in some measure folded in from the previously independent optimizations), and are receiving about the same credit per hour as before. The heavy crunchers and others who troubled to up their productivity and contribution to the project by installing the optimized science aps, on the other hand, are probably running code roughly equivalent in useful computation per hour as before, but are receiving vastly less credit than before.

While I'd plead with the heavy crunch community to recognize that cross-project equity is a legimate concern, and that there exists no solution which will preserve both cross-project equity and their former compensation rate, I'd plead with several frequent posters and moderators not to take the posture that somehow the heavy crunchers are mis-stating the vast reduction in credit per unit production which has befallen them. Also the representation that in configuring their machines to perform far more science per unit electrical power, per unit capital cost, and per host ID overhead than otherwise possible that they were cheating, instead of helping pioneer code improvements which have greatly expanded the science productivity available to the project.

Thanks, Eric, for your clarifying post.



ID: 309160 · Report as offensive
Daniel Schaalma
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 297
Credit: 16,953,703
RAC: 0
United States
Message 309226 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 3:41:20 UTC


The first concern seems to be that claimed credit per hour has dropped for fast machines, especially those that use BOINC clients with optimized benchmarking code. That is undoubtedly true. Fast machines were generally claiming more credit per workunit than their slower counterparts. For those using optimized benchmarking code this was doubly so, since they claim more credit per hour than the same machine running a standard BOINC client without doing any more real work per hour. I am not suggesting that this was a deliberate attempt by people to claim more credit than they were due. I believe that in most of the cases this was done to match the BOINC benchmarks to the work done by optimized SETI@home clients.


The effect of this being that those people who have spent an enormous amount of money and time on building a farm of the fastest crunchers, that do the MOST SCIENCE are, in effect, being PUNISHED for doing so. This is how we feel, as if we're being punished for doing the most work, in the most efficient mannor.

An example: Just before enhanced was released, I upgraded one of my machines from an Athlon XP2000 with 512 megs ram, to a Pentium D 950 w/1Gig ram, in order to better compete with those that were producing more. I was looking enthusiastically as the new machine began it's RAC climb, on it's way to about 3200, and seeing my overall daily output rapidly climbing. I ended up spending $800 on that last upgrade. Now, as that same machine has converted to Enhanced, it's daily output is FALLING. My OVERALL daily output is FALLING, and I haven't even switched them all over yet, as they still have some regular work left. It feels like the money I just spent, has had the OPPOSITE effect as I intended. The more faster machines I own, the more I will be punished for it. It has totally removed my enthusiasm for doing the work. What a slap in the face.

It has the effect of making the participants who contribute the most feel like they are being PUNISHED for doing what is in the best interests of the project. I've devoted SEVEN YEARS of my LIFE to this project, as well as donated financially. But the bottom line is, that the participants with the best equipment, and the most of it, are being punished for nothing other than doing the work as fast and as efficient as possible. With this being the official policy of the project, what incentives do I now have to continue to participate, much less do any further upgrades, as it would lead to a higher penalty. Without any incentive to do the work, what incentive do I now have to make further financial contributions? These are the questions that everyone who has been hit the hardest by this lower credit multiplier are now asking themselves. Unfortunately, the answer is that we now have no incentive to continue.

Respectfully, Daniel.
ID: 309226 · Report as offensive
Penguirl
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 03
Posts: 61
Credit: 806,978
RAC: 0
United States
Message 309230 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 4:02:36 UTC - in response to Message 309226.  


I upgraded one of my machines from an Athlon XP2000 with 512 megs ram, to a Pentium D 950 w/1Gig ram, in order to better compete with those that were producing more.
The effect of the new system is across the board. Those that you are competing with are experiencing the same effect you are, it's not as if you've been singled out while your competitors are operating under more favorable parameters. As Eric said, it would be unfair to offer more credit than other BOINC projects for the same amount of work. It could very well turn into a credit war with projects competing for hosts by increasing the credit awarded.

Don't get me wrong, I like credits too. I run (or ran) an optimized SETI app to improve the effeciency of my Macs, but I run an optimized BOINC client as well for maximum credit. But if the numbers escalate wildly, they become meaningless. Lets try to keep things in perspective. When ET is found and SETI is no longer needed, what will you do with your credits then? Sure they look good on a certificate, but you could always hack the image and award yourself however many credits you think you deserve.

ID: 309230 · Report as offensive
Daniel Schaalma
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 297
Credit: 16,953,703
RAC: 0
United States
Message 309248 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 4:53:22 UTC

This is not just about ME. This is about ANYONE who has put fourth the time, effort and money to build farms of the newest, fastest hardware, only to find that, by Eric's own admission, that it is this subset of users that are seeing a drastic cuts on their daily production of credit. The more faster computers you own and operate, the bigger your loss will be. This is what is so upsetting. Just because it's "happening to EVERYONE" is not a justification. It's a cop out. The fact is, that those with the fastest machines, and the most of them, are in effect being punished the most. The only ones who have any net GAIN from this are older machines running the stock clients and apps. Those that have spent tens of thousands of dollars, and the effort to use the most efficient apps, to do the MOST SCIENCE, are being HURT the WORST. It is a slap in the face for those of us that are in this position. And there are a great many of us. I am working on a way to let everyone know just how MUCH this means to us, and just what the potential loss to this project, at least in crunching terms, would be like.

Regards, Daniel.
ID: 309248 · Report as offensive
Profile The Gas Giant
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 01
Posts: 1904
Credit: 2,646,654
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 309258 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 5:19:35 UTC
Last modified: 18 May 2006, 5:22:57 UTC

I can tell you now that the only reason I am/was crunching SETI was for the increased credit when compared to the other projects. My resource share was no where near 100% SETI but sufficient so that I could hold my own while giving a majority of my resource share to other projects. In reality 1hr of computing time on SETI should give me the same credit as 1hr of computing time on LHC@home or MalariaControl.net or Leiden Classical etc for the same machine. If by going back to that "ideal" means that people stop crunching SETI then so be it, they were only in it for inflated credit in any case and not the science. By SETI releasing the source code and allowing optimisations by the general public they have sullied the idea behind a consistant credit per machine hr of crunching across BOINC based projects for that machine. If SETI or any other project wants to allow people to optimise their code, while still supplying non-optimised apps and the BOINC admin allow people to alter the credit claim then BOINC will not grow into what it could do as there will be no incentive to crunch for projects that rely purely on the standard BOINC framework. Afterall the whole idea behind BOINC was a consistant framework resulting in a consistant manner in giving credit for work done per machine hr of crunching. If you want more credit per hr, then you buy a faster machine, not change projects.

Non-project based optimisations should not be allowed. If a project wishes to optimise their application to increase the amount of science then it should occur completely within the framework of the project (like LHC@home).

Single quorum projects that grant credit purely based on a single result are also allowing escalated credit to be achieved and have a legion of crunchers purely doing those projects soley for the artificially high credit (yes I have done some of those as well).

The below is something that I posted regarding this in a different thread...

"Acknowledgement of people’s contribution is required to keep a majority of people involved with distributed computing. The conundrum that the developers of BOINC have been working on is how best to do this fairly. The benchmark idea was great at the time when only 1 or 2 projects were on BOINC and only a few individuals were optimising, but as more projects came online and optimised apps and clients became available en-masse, its limitations were discovered pretty quickly. Resulting in peoples preference for projects that gave good credit. The idea of counting the number of operations performed came out as a good replacement, but now very early in its public infancy we are seeing that it has problems as well. So how do the developers ensure that the same computer claims the same amount of credit no matter which project is crunched?

Do we just want to rely on having faster or more computers to boost our overall RAC? Do we, the volunteers, want to see a fair credit system? Are we for a socialist credit system or a free-market capitalist style of credit system? Do we want a credit system that is transportable across all BOINC based projects? Do we want to see a credit system that is only good on a specific project where we end up only (effectively) counting the number of wu’s completed and validated per project?"

I know what I want out of BOINC. What do you want out of BOINC?

Live long and crunch.

Paul
(S@H1 8888)
And proud of it!
ID: 309258 · Report as offensive
Profile Logan 5@SETI.USA
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 May 01
Posts: 54
Credit: 1,275,043
RAC: 0
United States
Message 309267 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 5:26:26 UTC
Last modified: 18 May 2006, 5:30:02 UTC

@ Eric K.

Ok. You have seen/read/heard enough banter on the message boards about this issue to have a pretty good idea where the main opinions lie across the issues and challenges presented by the release of Seti Enhanced.

So, with that said, what is Berkeley's "official" position on this issue?

Will Berkeley listen to it's users and adjust the mechanism that determines credit to make it more 'fair' within the restrictions currently in place..

OR

Will Berkeley stick to the official "the way that the credit system is now is what's best for BOINC" line and alienate/drive away a fairly significant portion of their volunteer/unpaid/free CPU cycle giving testers to other projects from seti for no reason other then Berkeley just seems to have 'outgrown' the happiness of it's users.

If what you are doing with the credit reporting is in the best interests of the science, then at least tell us that which is a far better way of putting it then Ageless telling many volunteer participants 'there's the door' in response to their frustration at the way that things currently stand.
ID: 309267 · Report as offensive
Profile gregh

Send message
Joined: 10 Jun 99
Posts: 220
Credit: 4,292,549
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 309277 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 5:40:44 UTC - in response to Message 308706.  



The second complaint is that a large fraction of users are seeing a large drop in their granted credit per hour. This is not true.


Wrong.

I recently had a blowout of a socket 478 motherboard that had a P4 3.4Ghz CPU on it and for a few weeks had to use a P4 1.7ghz on an older machine in it's place. Recently I bought a socket 775 MB and CPU and put them in on the same machine. When my drop from 3.4Ghz to 1.7Ghz happened, I expected that and it quickly evened out. Before I got the new MB and CPU in and working, the credit sharpply dropped once more for no reason at all other than the fact that I went from an older boinc to 5.48.

I suggest to you that it IS causing a large cutback in credit granted.

Contrary to what most on this thread are complaining about, I use the credit rating per machine as an indicator on my machine of performance. The fact that it dropped for no reason made me wonder if one of my machines had crashed or died but neither had happened.

Lastly, I dont do this for the credit in reality. I do it because I want to and can but in reading your comment, I just had to put my bit in.

Greg.
ID: 309277 · Report as offensive
Profile Kirsten
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Jul 00
Posts: 190
Credit: 566,047
RAC: 0
Denmark
Message 309334 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 7:00:18 UTC
Last modified: 18 May 2006, 7:11:55 UTC

Saw the above response and decided not to expose myself to anything similar and removed my post.
Kind regards
Kirsten

ID: 309334 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13720
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 309338 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 7:04:16 UTC - in response to Message 309226.  

The effect of this being that those people who have spent an enormous amount of money and time on building a farm of the fastest crunchers, that do the MOST SCIENCE are, in effect, being PUNISHED for doing so.

Bollocks.
A fast cruncher is still a fast cruncher & will earn more credits per hour than a slow crucnher.


Blah, blah, blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah, blah! Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah
Respectfully, Daniel.

Mate, you really have got a serious problem.
Whether you decide to leave or stay i reckon you need to just get away for a few weeks & get some perspective & take a good long hard look at things from the outside.
Leave your systems running, take them off line. Whatever you do just get away from the forums & everything else for a while & if you do decide to come back you can at least do so with a fresh outlook on things.
Just get a grip before you loose it completely.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 309338 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13720
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 309349 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 7:19:22 UTC - in response to Message 309334.  

Once I used RAC to compare any improved contribution/upgrading of hardware I made when crunching work for SETI.

Maybe that's the problem.
People are getting so worked up over the RAC value; better to actually look at the credits per day.

For myself, looking at my stats on BOINCstats, over the last month there has been no change in the rate at which i have been earning credit. Looking at it since Septmeber 2004, there was slight increase in the amount of credit i got each day around Sept 2005. It would have been around that time i got my second computer. There is a slight drop for this month- but then it is only 2/3 of the way through.
And looking at the daily graph the only reason it's died at the end there was the outage today. As results are returned & reported that too will pick up.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 309349 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13720
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 309382 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 8:38:40 UTC - in response to Message 309349.  

...better to actually look at the credits per day.

Or maybe even credits per week, as even the daily value can vary quite a bit due to outages. And with the variable crunching times of the new version, combined with the often longer times to complete that will also affect the daily amount.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 309382 · Report as offensive
Kim Vater
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 27 May 99
Posts: 227
Credit: 22,743,307
RAC: 0
Norway
Message 309409 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 10:23:59 UTC
Last modified: 18 May 2006, 11:21:08 UTC

I guess that we have to wait a month ot two to see how things (stats) will develope/settle.
(My RAC is falling quicly while the number og pending WU's are rising and so is the number of preemted WU's - all 6 hosts running 24/7)

Most people like to compete - and almost all people like to compete on equal terms.
I guess that the staff at SETI is trying to provide us with an equal playground to compete on.

As of now it doesn't look like they have sucseeded in doing that - they have only managed to put 'a stick in the wheel' on the fastest competitors so far (like putting a 50 kilo backpack on the worlds best marathon-runners = a kind of 'handicap' system).

PS. When reading Eric's first post here - I got a sence of that the fastest Intel CPU's are very disliked amongst the SETI developers. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Kiva


Greetings from Norway

Crunch3er & AK-V8 Inside
ID: 309409 · Report as offensive
Idefix
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Sep 99
Posts: 154
Credit: 482,193
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 309417 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 10:48:46 UTC - in response to Message 309277.  

Hi,
The second complaint is that a large fraction of users are seeing a large drop in their granted credit per hour. This is not true.

Wrong.

You missunderstood this line ...

Eric didn't say that there isn't any drop. He said that only a minority get this drop in their granted credits per hour.

If there were a significant project wide drop of overall credits per hour with seti_enhanced you should see it at Boincstats & Co. But up to now there is no evidence.

Regards,
Carsten
ID: 309417 · Report as offensive
Profile The Gas Giant
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 01
Posts: 1904
Credit: 2,646,654
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 309433 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 11:28:46 UTC

What you all don't understand is that by SETI allowing optimisations outside of the project and that by the BOINC admin (remember they are 2 different teams) allowing their source code to be optimised it has created this situation. Remember that BOINC is multi-project, NOT JUST SETI. If by bringing the amount of granted credit back to the same amount as the same machine would get on other projects this upsets 100? 200? 300? 400? 500? people and they stop crunching, at the end of the day it is but a small bump in the road. Does it mean that SETI looses 3000 hosts..then pfffft. SETI is not being fair to the other BOINC projects. Neither is Einstein. Neither is Rosetta. Neither is QMC. Neither is any other project that allows more credit to be claimed and granted than is defined by a typical BOINC install.

Again...just a few more cents worth.

Live and long and crunch (fairly).
ID: 309433 · Report as offensive
Profile Mike Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 01
Posts: 34253
Credit: 79,922,639
RAC: 80
Germany
Message 309447 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 11:49:32 UTC


Well said.

Mike



With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.
ID: 309447 · Report as offensive
Profile ghutt67

Send message
Joined: 12 Apr 02
Posts: 5
Credit: 1,095,123
RAC: 0
United States
Message 309448 - Posted: 18 May 2006, 11:51:11 UTC

hi all not to be a dumb ass but whats all the fuss over the the damn credit if some one would be so kind as to clue me in i would appreciate it very much

thnx geo
ID: 309448 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 18 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Response to concerns regarding the new credit system.


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.