Overall, I get the sense that the SETI tsars dismiss crunchers as serfs, rather than appreciating them as contributors. It is no surprise that the lowlier the serf, the more willing he is to kiss the tsar's ring.
Emmet

Thus, cheerleaders are born... haha :)

Give me a "U"...
Give me an "H"...

*acts spacey*

Give me a clue to what you're talk about! lol :)

-Kelly
former cheerleader

No offense to real cheerleaders Kelly. The people in these forums who viciously defend the ones in charge of the project and forums against any and all critics (even those with valid concerns) are now being referred to as cheerleaders by those they try to 'outshout', so to speak.

---

http://www.setiusa.net

Are people mad and leaving the project because a valued user has been slighted?

Or are people mad and leaving the project because they no longer can get faster-than-normal credits?

I'm sorry, I don't know, but I *can* tell you why I am actually staying:

- "Brand loyalty" as someone has suggested (joined "long ago").
- It is an interesting project. Slim chances of a true hit, perhaps, but anyway...
- I actually envision that my CPU-cycle donation matters!
- Seti has survived several little crises, and probably will this time again.
- I'm pretty stubborn...

I have used Crunch3r's optimised apps, primarily to increase science output per kWh, althought the rise in RAC did tickle my ego nicely. That RAC is dropping now I can live with (*shrugs*). Basically I'm in this, as well as in CPDN and P@H, for science. Honestly optimised clients produce more science, and are in my simple thinking therefore better even if they are second-party (I assume I will be properly reprimanded for that).

I'm deeply sorry for adding to the noise...

---

[I have used Crunch3r's optimised apps, primarily to increase science output per kWh, althought the rise in RAC did tickle my ego nicely. That RAC is dropping now I can live with (*shrugs*). Basically I'm in this, as well as in CPDN and P@H, for science. Honestly optimised clients produce more science, and are in my simple thinking therefore better even if they are second-party (I assume I will be properly reprimanded for that).

I'm deeply sorry for adding to the noise...

you won't be reprimanded by me or anyone I know for having used using an optimized app with the old benchmark system. You're right, it sped up production with proven scientifically valid results. It's a good thing. The big ruckus is over optimized BOINC clients which overclaimed with the old boinc benchmark system, and the new optimized apps (since claimed credit moved from Boinc to the science app with the new fpops system) with inappropriate multipliers. If someone creates an optimized app with the correct multiplier, and does scientifically valid work, I'll be using it.

tony

For heavens sake man, STOP playing the POLICE...
I think that many of us are completely fed up with this mumbo-jumbo and tracking attitude. If we really would be interested in the measle credit sytem or the credits and not in the science we easily could have thrown in another batch of 50 boxes available on our campus... For the moment with such an attitude this will be surely out of the question...

HP

---

If someone creates an optimized app with the correct multiplier, and does scientifically valid work, I'll be using it.

tony

Tony,

I had asked that you email me, and you have not. I don't have much time to write anything at this point, as I'm now off of vacation and needing to leave for work.

What I was concerned about was I was beginning to see an underlying sentiment from you that NO optimization should be allowed...that only the "official" release should be used. I had a fundamental issue with that, and it is what I wanted to talk to you about. If a parallel test is run and the scientific results are the same between 5.15 and a 3rd party's version, then I don't see a big deal. Eventually the 3rd party's changes could/would get included in the main source trunk for the "official" code.

Also, something you're not going to like, I don't see a huge deal about 3.35 vs. 3.36. Since I work as a programmer, I can easily see myself accidentally fat-fingering that. People make mistakes. However, if you view a situation with a pre-determined mindset ("he is trying to cheat"), you run the risk of incorrectly treating a mistake as an intentional act.

Frankly, I think, like others have suggested, you should let this thing go. Nobody can claim that there has been a "lack of visibility" to the issue(s) that you brought up. I think for the sake of peace here, you should let it go and respect what the project staff decides to do.

Can you please do that?

Respectfully,

Brian

---

Tony,

I had asked that you email me, and you have not. I don't have much time to write anything at this point, as I'm now off of vacation and needing to leave for work.

What I was concerned about was I was beginning to see an underlying sentiment from you that NO optimization should be allowed...that only the "official" release should be used. I had a fundamental issue with that, and it is what I wanted to talk to you about. If a parallel test is run and the scientific results are the same between 5.15 and a 3rd party's version, then I don't see a big deal. Eventually the 3rd party's changes could/would get included in the main source trunk for the "official" code.

Also, something you're not going to like, I don't see a huge deal about 3.35 vs. 3.36. Since I work as a programmer, I can easily see myself accidentally fat-fingering that. People make mistakes. However, if you view a situation with a pre-determined mindset ("he is trying to cheat"), you run the risk of incorrectly treating a mistake as an intentional act.

Frankly, I think, like others have suggested, you should let this thing go. Nobody can claim that there has been a "lack of visibility" to the issue(s) that you brought up. I think for the sake of peace here, you should let it go and respect what the project staff decides to do.

Can you please do that?

Respectfully,

Brian

Brian, Hachpi, if you haven't noticed, I have dropped persuing the crunch3r issue. I haven't posted there since I said I was done.

Sven-Urban Fjellner posts seems like he was afraid to post his idea, and that optimized apps were somehow viewed as bad. My post was to ensure him he was OK to enter these waters and that (the right) optimized apps were OK to use by him or anyone else. There seems to be some confusion out there that optimized apps are bad, when they aren't. Some people don't fully understand the issue for one reason or another. Maybe their new, maybe they're not new, but just haven't investigated the issue.

I will continue to post here and try to help other users use boinc and seti. I have 5700 posts in these fora, 5500 of which include me helping others, 200 are just plain silly posts. I won't stop trying to help just because some users are viewing my posts with an air of the previous thread still in their minds. If you view my posts with an air of suspicion that's fine, and probably what I'd do, but don't assume that just because I'm talking about a fair credit system doesn't mean I'm attacking the other user. I'm not afraid to use someones name when I make a statement. That should be clear by now.

tony

Brian, Hachpi, if you haven't noticed, I have dropped persuing the crunch3r issue. I haven't posted there since I said I was done.

Sven-Urban Fjellner posts seems like he was afraid to post his idea, and that optimized apps were somehow viewed as bad. My post was to ensure him he was OK to enter these waters and that (the right) optimized apps were OK to use by him or anyone else. There seems to be some confusion out there that optimized apps are bad, when they aren't. Some people don't fully understand the issue for one reason or another. Maybe their new, maybe they're not new, but just haven't investigated the issue.

I will continue to post here and try to help other users use boinc and seti. I have 5700 posts in these fora, 5500 of which include me helping others, 200 are just plain silly posts. I won't stop trying to help just because some users are viewing my posts with an air of the previous thread still in their minds. If you view my posts with an air of suspicion that's fine, and probably what I'd do, but don't assume that just because I'm talking about a fair credit system doesn't mean I'm attacking the other user. I'm not afraid to use someones name when I make a statement. That should be clear by now.

tony

[/quote]

Now, that seems fair to me. Perhaps things have run all a bit out of hand... It happens to be very difficult to communicate by means of written (often delayed text) and moreover as is often the case in a different language.

The solution of the whole story might well be that no optimised clients are allowed before they get any approval from Berkeley themselves. In fact they have this responsibility towards the project and the crunchers.
In that way non of this would have happened. On many occasions though, they have often neglected to contact relevant persons and or situations in the past (remember Paul Buck...). I myself have often criticised the lack of information and public relations coming from the top of this project.

In this writing I would firmly express the hope that we all learn from the mistakes and get going again for the better of the good cause.
Perhaps they ought to do some rethinking concerning all this matters.
-optimized applications
-credit system
-moderation of the boards
- etc...

PS: By now it should be cristal clear that I'm totally uninterested in credits whatsoever...

Greetings from Belgium ;-))

---

The solution of the whole story might well be that no optimised clients are allowed before they get any approval from Berkeley themselves. In fact they have this responsibility towards the project and the crunchers.
In that way non of this would have happened.

Go to this thread http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=31517. Eric K. and I are discussing this very idea.

---