I do seem to have asked a rather more complicated question than I first thought: But it's been interesting noting that there are some anomalies; I crunched the last of my Classics in March 2005- I think- then had a 2-year hiatus, before beginning with Boinc full-blown in February.
But thanks for explaining how, as a relative late-comer, I have such a low ID (I seem to have a vague recollection that this was my ranking at the time I last crunched- or am I suffering a case of byte-fatigue?).

ID # has nothing to do with anything you did, other than sign up.

S@H BOINC ID was assigned in one of two ways. If it is a relatively low number it was assigned based on the rank you had in Classic on the first copy of the database. If you did not activate your Classic account, you get a much higher number that is based on creation order. I know that my rank was the same as my new ID on the date of the first DB copy (I checked, and one of the project staff said it was that way at the time).

---

BOINC WIKI

I do seem to have asked a rather more complicated question than I first thought: But it's been interesting noting that there are some anomalies; I crunched the last of my Classics in March 2005- I think- then had a 2-year hiatus, before beginning with Boinc full-blown in February.
But thanks for explaining how, as a relative late-comer, I have such a low ID (I seem to have a vague recollection that this was my ranking at the time I last crunched- or am I suffering a case of byte-fatigue?).

ID # has nothing to do with anything you did, other than sign up.

S@H BOINC ID was assigned in one of two ways. If it is a relatively low number it was assigned based on the rank you had in Classic on the first copy of the database. If you did not activate your Classic account, you get a much higher number that is based on creation order. I know that my rank was the same as my new ID on the date of the first DB copy (I checked, and one of the project staff said it was that way at the time).

Thanks for that Post John . . .

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

I don't suppose I count? But we should be going by S@H classic ID, right?

My classic ID was 2.

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)

I don't suppose I count? But we should be going by S@H classic ID, right?

My classic ID was 2.

Then YOU are the Winner 'ere Sir!!!

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

I don't suppose I count? But we should be going by S@H classic ID, right?

My classic ID was 2.

I liked your 1901 start date better.

---

me@rescam.org

I don't suppose I count? But we should be going by S@H classic ID, right?

My classic ID was 2.

I liked your 1901 start date better.

Too bad it had to change. It was breaking some of the BOINC stats sites. I liked my SETI@home classic start date (November 24, 4714 B.C.)

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)

I don't suppose I count? But we should be going by S@H classic ID, right?

My classic ID was 2.

I liked your 1901 start date better.

Too bad it had to change. It was breaking some of the BOINC stats sites. I liked my SETI@home classic start date (November 24, 4714 B.C.)

Is that the earliest date the system will accept, 4/3/99?

---

me@rescam.org

I don't suppose I count? But we should be going by S@H classic ID, right?

My classic ID was 2.

I liked your 1901 start date better.

Too bad it had to change. It was breaking some of the BOINC stats sites. I liked my SETI@home classic start date (November 24, 4714 B.C.)

Is that the earliest date the system will accept, 4/3/99?

I think I was given a date equal to the next earliest valid entry.

Eric

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)

I am not lowest but still active...

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

I don't suppose I count? But we should be going by S@H classic ID, right?

My classic ID was 2.

I liked your 1901 start date better.

Too bad it had to change. It was breaking some of the BOINC stats sites. I liked my SETI@home classic start date (November 24, 4714 B.C.)

> @ Eric, were there any 'problems' on the Boards in those days . . . ;)

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

I don't suppose I count? But we should be going by S@H classic ID, right?

My classic ID was 2.

I liked your 1901 start date better.

Too bad it had to change. It was breaking some of the BOINC stats sites. I liked my SETI@home classic start date (November 24, 4714 B.C.)

> @ Eric, were there any 'problems' on the Boards in those days . . . ;)

Some of the stone tablets were broken.

---

me@rescam.org

Well, I don't think we're ever likely to get a post from #1 in this thread.
So, yes, I agree: Eric, as the possessor of #2
is the winner...
Thank you to those individuals who bothered to answer such a facile question;
and also for the info regarding Classic and Boinc ID #'s.

I think we can consider this thread closed-
unless...

42