I only did a copy and paste, so take it up with higher management.

Andy

I did some searching and can only find it listed like you did it. By both Matt L and the Planetary Society. So, I'm wrong. Drive on.

snippet from Matt:

Over lunch Jeff and I resurrected design development on the Near Time Persistency Checker (a.k.a. the NTPCer, pronounced "nitpicker").

however interesting this digression is, it does not seem to bring us any closer to facilitating Bill&Patsy's desire to reward computational effort based on scientific "worth"

;-)

That's difficult, because unexpected seemingly worthless things have led to great scientific advancements .... [you would need to predict the future]

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

How long do you think it would take for xx % of the group to migrate (more like exit stage left) to another project?

While this idea is taking what I'm saying to the extreme to prove a point, personally, I feel taking away credits would take away what I perceive as petty bickering, I know that doing so would result in so very few people participating.

The only counter-point I can make is if we put so much value on credits, why is it that whenever someone new asks what they can be used for, we always answer "bragging rights"? I feel the reason is because we know they're worthless, yet the petty human mind in us all wants to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Until BOINC makes cobblestones valuable by making them redeemable for actual merchandise, then I feel the entire conversation is, as I said before, much ado about nothing.

---

Meh. If one really wants to give value to cobblestones. Though if we already agree that they have no real-world value, what good does giving them a value do for you (I mean "you" generally, not "you" specifically)? What good can come of it? It's great that everyone wants to collect them (like pokemon?), but then everyone is just going to have to understand that there will be changes to keep cross-project parity of utmost concern.

Personally, I like racking up cobblestones too, but I have always failed to see why there's such heated discussions when there's much more important things in life to worry about and concern ourselves over. I think its much ado about nothing. Just another distraction for humans to look at instead of the real issues facing everyday life.

What a bizarre post from a mod, who has a signature showing his stats in SETI & CPDN??????

I've been trying very hard to figure what you have implied by this post, and the only thing I can think of is that because I'm proud of my stats, I somehow am being hypocritical.

Am I proud of my credits? Yes. From what I can tell, this conversation isn't about being proud of one's credits. Would I be mad if they took all credits away from everyone? Not in the least. They're worthless - but fun.

In my opinion, bickering about worthless stuff is like bickering about the value of Monopoly money. Watching two people (or more) argue about the minute details of a game really ruins the fun of it all. It would show the person/people are taking it way too seriously and really need to find something else to be more passionate about - like maybe the science.

I won't try to pretend to tell people what they should be passionate about, but I certainly will offer my suggestion and opinion, just as everyone else is.

---

Folks it's a hobby. Don't you remember the old saying "He who dies with the most toys wins." Some people collect coins or stamps. Others cars or plants. We collect cobblestones. (Cute little cobblestone.) It matters not that they have no value outside of the hallowed halls of cyber science. This is suppose to be fun and benificial to the enhancement of human knowlege. OK so I want to be number 1. I am competative by nature. I would love to have Bill G's billions or Nez's RAC. I never will and I'm ok with that. Still, I'm willing to spend a few $K to get into the top 1%. I really don't care that much about broadcasting that fact to the world. It's a personal satifaction thing. It makes me feel good to know that I am doing well at what I am doing. Of course it would be nice to get a ball cap in exchange for say a billion credits or so. Let have fun with this. Don't get to stressed.
Nanu nanu :)

---

In fact, as I've pointed out in several posts, cobblestones have value, because a whole bunch of people passionately believe that they have value.

What I'm advocating is pretty simple. When BOINC started, cobblestones were granted as credit based on a specific standard: 864 seconds worth of processing on a machine that does:

• 1,000 double-precision MIPS based on the Whetstone Benchmark.
  
• 1,000 VAX MIPS based on the Dhrystone Benchmark.
  

I want a cobblestone of work done today to be comparable to a cobblestone of work done in the past.

Ned, Cobblestones are naive simplicity. You keep citing the definition of Cobblestones as some sort of proof of your position. That logic is circular. It is easy to demonstrate that Cobblestones, by themselves, do not prove that any useful science has been done, nor how valuable, relative to another usage, any such science may be. By themselves Cobblestones prove nothing.

Consider: If a project has, say, a quasi-infinite loop that does almost nothing, apparently you approve as long as the machine cycles are rewarded. But, per this example, the naked definition of Cobblestones doesn't prove that they represent any science value at all. Why do you continue to try to force the Science into the Cobblestones, instead of looking at the actual science that is produced by those Cobblestones? The scientific "worth" of one Cobblestone cannot sensibly be compared in vacuo to another.

So, I continue to advocate that the more science that is performed for a given amount of work (Cobblestones, if you will), the more recognition that should be accorded. Conversely, those that waste Cobblestones should not be rewarded.

Bill,

Don't you know the difference between "logic" and a "definition"?

I'm not arguing that the definition is logical.

I'm arguing that the definition defines a cobblestone.

-- Ned

---

I'm not arguing that the definition is logical.

I'm arguing that the definition defines a cobblestone.

Quite so.

And most of the 'arguments' surround how the present benchmarks are unrepresentative of reality...

And then how best to explain that to people...


Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Bill,

Don't you know the difference between "logic" and a "definition"?

I'm not arguing that the definition is logical.

I'm arguing that the definition defines a cobblestone.

-- Ned

Wow! Ned! Backing away from the work valuation issue? OK, let's see what you actually said (edited for brevity):

Here is the definition of a cobblestone:
--<< definition snipped >>--
...the standard still says that the reference machine should average 100 credits/day.
...the same work should grant the same credit. We aren't measuring work units, we're measuring work.

The original full posting looks even more like an opinion that the definition of "Cobblestone" should be the standard for determining recognition.

Later, you posted:

A hypothetical "reference" BOINC machine should earn the same number of credits per day, without regard for the project being crunched.

Then:

My point comes directly from the definition of a cobblestone, which you may read here or officially here.

You are arguing that a cobblestone should be worth more than a cobblestone.

Still later you said:

If I may offer a counter-suggestion: the standard SETI application should grant credit based on the definition of a cobblestone.

No more, no less.

And then:

What I'm advocating is pretty simple. When BOINC started, cobblestones were granted as credit based on a specific standard:
--<< definition snipped >>--
I want a cobblestone of work done today to be comparable to a cobblestone of work done in the past.

So wow, Ned. Guess perhaps it is my problem. ;-) Instead of trying to understand your meaning as we struggle through the nettles of "fairness", I should have paid more attention to your "definitions", which, as I now see most clearly(!), were purely informational in context and bereft of advocacy...

As for the logic of definitions, you can for example define "new suit" however you like, but the Emperor was not wearing one. Similarly, the definition of a Cobblestone does not per se confer science value upon it. We are venerating the wrong standard.

I believe that some of us - those who want the credits to reflect science value - consider that Cobblestones, if used, should be no more than a starting point, not the finish line.

---

--Bill

Questions
Is your computer working any harder processing MB units than before?
If, Yes, then you could expect more cr/hr.
But if, No, can you justify why you should be granted more cr/hr?

Imagine that Seti was a production line factory, and it is you not your computer doing the work.
You are happy with the pay and conditions producing model 'line feed' using tool 5.15.
Seti now starts production of the latest model, multi-beam (MB), and you are moved to this production line. MB has been designed to be easier to make and they have also given you a new faster tool 5.23.
You are not working any harder but the company is producing more units/hr. You may think because of this you should have a pay rise, but there is such a thing as market forces. The market is near saturation (think cell phones) and therefore to get the public to buy your product, instead of your competitors, the price has to be dropped, and there is need of a big expensive publicity campaign etc. etc. Do you still think you increased pay claim is justified.

Andy

Bill,

One of the (many) fallacies is that this is my definition.

I didn't define it. The BOINC project defined it.

All of my messages (which you quoted at length) say the same thing: a cobblestone should be a cobblestone, without regard to which project granted it.

So, we go to the definition. The definition says "100 cobblestones per day on a computer that meets these benchmarks."

Clearly, you think that credit should be granted with a 20% bonus and not based on the definition -- and anyone who disagrees with that clearly must be wrong.

Specifically:

Bill,

Don't you know the difference between "logic" and a "definition"?

I'm not arguing that the definition is logical.

I'm arguing that the definition defines a cobblestone.

-- Ned

Wow! Ned! Backing away from the work valuation issue? OK, let's see what you actually said (edited for brevity):

Here is the definition of a cobblestone:
--<< definition snipped >>--
...the standard still says that the reference machine should average 100 credits/day.
...the same work should grant the same credit. We aren't measuring work units, we're measuring work.

The original full posting looks even more like an opinion that the definition of "Cobblestone" should be the standard for determining recognition.

I'm saying that credit should be granted based on the standard value of one cobblestone, as set out by the BOINC project.

Later, you posted:

A hypothetical "reference" BOINC machine should earn the same number of credits per day, without regard for the project being crunched.

Then:

My point comes directly from the definition of a cobblestone, which you may read here or officially here.

You are arguing that a cobblestone should be worth more than a cobblestone.

No contradiction there. Both quotes say that I think a cobblestone should be based on the standard as set down in the various BOINC documents.

Still later you said:

If I may offer a counter-suggestion: the standard SETI application should grant credit based on the definition of a cobblestone.

No more, no less.

And then:

What I'm advocating is pretty simple. When BOINC started, cobblestones were granted as credit based on a specific standard:
--<< definition snipped >>--
I want a cobblestone of work done today to be comparable to a cobblestone of work done in the past.

So wow, Ned. Guess perhaps it is my problem. ;-) Instead of trying to understand your meaning as we struggle through the nettles of "fairness", I should have paid more attention to your "definitions", which, as I now see most clearly(!), were purely informational in context and bereft of advocacy...

Again, I'm saying that BOINC defined a cobblestone, and said "this is the standard for granting credit." If you like, I can probably track down the original documents written by Dr. Anderson and his associates.

As for the logic of definitions, you can for example define "new suit" however you like, but the Emperor was not wearing one. Similarly, the definition of a Cobblestone does not per se confer science value upon it. We are venerating the wrong standard.

By the same argument, I could "define" a cobblestone anyway I wish, but it is not mine to define. When the Emperor appeared naked, his subjects knew that his attire did not match the accepted definition of "clothes" -- they simply didn't want to upset the emperor.

I didn't pick the definition of cobblestone -- I am simply reminding you that this is the accepted definition, going back to the beginning.

The definition of the term comes from Berkeley.

The science value of most work units is vanishingly close to zero. We aren't looking for something that's plentiful, we're searching for something that we are extremely unlikely to find.

The work unit(s) that have value are priceless, and if you find it, SETI@Home has always said that the crunchers names will appear right along with the discoverers.

I believe that some of us - those who want the credits to reflect science value - consider that Cobblestones, if used, should be no more than a starting point, not the finish line.

... and I believe that work done today should get the same credit as work done on June 22, 2004.

---

I believe that some of us - those who want the credits to reflect science value - consider that Cobblestones, if used, should be no more than a starting point, not the finish line.

How would you define the scientific value of processing a work unit?

Because as i see it, the Cobblestones do that.
There is raw data that needs to be processed. People download small chunks of it & process it as necessary, then return the results of that processing. They are given credit for the work done.
I can't see how the Cobblestone doesn't reflect the sceintific value of the work done.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I believe that some of us - those who want the credits to reflect science value - consider that Cobblestones, if used, should be no more than a starting point, not the finish line.

How would you define the scientific value of processing a work unit?

Because as i see it, the Cobblestones do that.
There is raw data that needs to be processed. People download small chunks of it & process it as necessary, then return the results of that processing. They are given credit for the work done.
I can't see how the Cobblestone doesn't reflect the sceintific value of the work done.

Because some programs (e.g., optimized) return those results with the expenditure of fewer Cobblestones. The value generated per Cobblestone is therefore higher in such programs.

---

--Bill

Questions
Is your computer working any harder processing MB units than before?
If, Yes, then you could expect more cr/hr.
But if, No, can you justify why you should be granted more cr/hr?

Imagine that Seti was a production line factory, and it is you not your computer doing the work.
You are happy with the pay and conditions producing model 'line feed' using tool 5.15.
Seti now starts production of the latest model, multi-beam (MB), and you are moved to this production line. MB has been designed to be easier to make and they have also given you a new faster tool 5.23.
You are not working any harder but the company is producing more units/hr. You may think because of this you should have a pay rise, but there is such a thing as market forces. The market is near saturation (think cell phones) and therefore to get the public to buy your product, instead of your competitors, the price has to be dropped, and there is need of a big expensive publicity campaign etc. etc. Do you still think you increased pay claim is justified.

Andy

Hi Andy.

There's actually a lot of complexity in your question. E.g., valuation of factors of production (raw materials, labor, capital, energy), productivity indices, costs of production vs. profit margins vs. perceived value and sustainable prices in the market place (vide Apple vs. Dell), etc.

But (and please correct me if I miss your point), I think what you're getting at is close to the heart of the discussion: Should we recognize (reward) individual effort based upon the effort that is put into a project, or should we recognize the science value output that results from that effort. Ned believes in the former. (He denies advocating for it, but he keeps using the word "should".) I kind of think you may incline toward the former too.

Since you are using an economics type model to posit your question, then one might consider the economics question of the efficient allocation of resources. Such a consideration would attach greater value to more efficient utilization of the factors of production, and would structure it to direct resources accordingly. That would recommend the latter approach, which is what I believe in. I don't believe in rewarding waste, or rewarding inefficient programs. If you like a project, then its efficiency may not matter to you, so no harm done. Buyer's choice. But I don't want to encourage or reward waste. (Which is why I dumped 5.23 (I have Macs) and ran back to Alex's 5.13.)

As some have pointed out, putting objective valuation on the science that is produced by all these BOINC projects will be difficult. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. The participants in this great enterprise are hugely intelligent and can solve this riddle. And in fact they're already doing a little bit of it by twiddling with the multipliers and doing cross-project comparisons. So, we should just commit to keep at it so that we get better and better at it. One easy place to start is with apps that are not distinguishable in effect except for speed: optimized apps and their non-optimized siblings. We can start by agreeing not to discriminate against the faster ones, and not to discriminate against their progeny vis-a-vis the equivalent functions that are carried forward into later apps. That is, if we can agree that it's the outputs that should be rewarded, not the efforts.

I'm not alone in the belief that projects should be rewarded for results (in the dictionary sense), not effort.

But I'm also not so naive as to believe that any of this is going to make any difference to the Powers at BOINC. They long ago declared what they think is fair and the door is closed. The responses by the "faithful" in this thread have confirmed as much.

But it's been fun trying. I briefly hoped we might have been able to convince someone to commit to rewarding efficiency, rewarding value produced -- in short, rewarding excellence -- rather than rewarding effort no matter how wasted it might be.

So, what is "fair"? What is "justified"? I believe that what is fair and what is justified is a reward structure that produces the most science for the resources that are input into it. The more efficient we are, the sooner we'll find ET (if he's discoverable...).

It's a plea to incentivize excellence. Too bad the Powers don't agree.

Oh well.

---

--Bill

I believe that some of us - those who want the credits to reflect science value - consider that Cobblestones, if used, should be no more than a starting point, not the finish line.

How would you define the scientific value of processing a work unit?

Because as i see it, the Cobblestones do that.
There is raw data that needs to be processed. People download small chunks of it & process it as necessary, then return the results of that processing. They are given credit for the work done.
I can't see how the Cobblestone doesn't reflect the sceintific value of the work done.

Because some programs (e.g., optimized) return those results with the expenditure of fewer Cobblestones. The value generated per Cobblestone is therefore higher in such programs.

How is the value higher? They have done the same work, just in less time.
The end result is, they'll get more Cobblestones per hour/day/week or whatever than those that take longer.
Cobblestones are an indicator of the work done. Doing the same work in less time gets you more. That is how the scientific work is recognised, and how those that do more per day get the greater recognition.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Should we recognize (reward) individual effort based upon the effort that is put into a project, or should we recognize the science value output that results from that effort.

So how do you reward for science, not effort?

....
We can start by agreeing not to discriminate against the faster ones, and not to discriminate against their progeny vis-a-vis the equivalent functions that are carried forward into later apps. That is, if we can agree that it's the outputs that should be rewarded, not the efforts.

I still don't follow.
If the effort was being rewarded, and not the output then clients that take longer to complete the work would earn more credit for doing so.
The present system rewards for the work done- eg 60 credits for doing a Work Unit. One person does it in 30 minutes, the other 12 hours.
They have both done the same work, so both get the same reward for doing so. The one that does it faster will get more credit sooner than the slower one. ie more reward.

I believe that what is fair and what is justified is a reward structure that produces the most science for the resources that are input into it. The more efficient we are, the sooner we'll find ET (if he's discoverable...).

Which is what's happening, so i still can't see what the problem is.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Look everybody........The credit value of Seti WUs has been changed. No use kvetching about why. The new MB WUs will present a lower credit/hour for the computer time spent. It's just a new benchmark, and will become standard and accepted in the weeks to come. The WUs have changed, the apps have changed, and crunch times and credits will not be the same as in the past few months.
Let's just all settle back and crunch. The search is the same, only the output looks a bit different.
If Seti were to reduce the credit multiplier to 1 instead of 2.85, would you quit the project just because you didn't look as good? I wouldn't switch to another project just because I might get a few more points/hour of crunching time. I am crunching Seti because I want to crunch Seti for the project's goal. And that is not to aquire credit points. If Seti awarded 1 point per WU, I would still crunch on. It might not be as exciting, but I started crunching Seti over 7 years ago because the goal excited me, not because I could amass the most credits.
If it starts to wear on you when your RAC is not as high as it used to be, please reevaluate why you are involved in this project in the first place.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Should we recognize (reward) individual effort based upon the effort that is put into a project, or should we recognize the science value output that results from that effort.

So how do you reward for science, not effort?...

I think a good compromise would be to 'reward' the 'compute resource' made available to a project.

It's then up to that project exactly how that resource is utilised to gain whatever Science.

Unfortunately, the present Cobblestone definition only rewards an unrealistically small part of the compute resource made available.


Long ago, there was a very long and meandering discussion arguing that the science applications themselves should be calibrated against some golden standard and then the present quorum system used to propagate that calibration in a similar way to what is done for measurement standards from NIST... We then get a 'reward' value that is dependant on how useful the compute resource offered is for actually doing useful work...

Meanwhile, a quick compromise 'fix' solution is to use fpops counting...

Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Should we recognize (reward) individual effort based upon the effort that is put into a project, or should we recognize the science value output that results from that effort.

So how do you reward for science, not effort?

....
We can start by agreeing not to discriminate against the faster ones, and not to discriminate against their progeny vis-a-vis the equivalent functions that are carried forward into later apps. That is, if we can agree that it's the outputs that should be rewarded, not the efforts.

I still don't follow.
If the effort was being rewarded, and not the output then clients that take longer to complete the work would earn more credit for doing so.
The present system rewards for the work done- eg 60 credits for doing a Work Unit. One person does it in 30 minutes, the other 12 hours.
They have both done the same work, so both get the same reward for doing so. The one that does it faster will get more credit sooner than the slower one. ie more reward.

I believe that what is fair and what is justified is a reward structure that produces the most science for the resources that are input into it. The more efficient we are, the sooner we'll find ET (if he's discoverable...).

Which is what's happening, so i still can't see what the problem is.

One reason, Grant, is that They are determined to not let that happen. As msattler reminds us, the multipliers are being adjusted to do away with recognition (and hence rewards) for efficiency improvements such as optimizations.

---

--Bill

Should we recognize (reward) individual effort based upon the effort that is put into a project, or should we recognize the science value output that results from that effort.

So how do you reward for science, not effort?

....
We can start by agreeing not to discriminate against the faster ones, and not to discriminate against their progeny vis-a-vis the equivalent functions that are carried forward into later apps. That is, if we can agree that it's the outputs that should be rewarded, not the efforts.

I still don't follow.
If the effort was being rewarded, and not the output then clients that take longer to complete the work would earn more credit for doing so.
The present system rewards for the work done- eg 60 credits for doing a Work Unit. One person does it in 30 minutes, the other 12 hours.
They have both done the same work, so both get the same reward for doing so. The one that does it faster will get more credit sooner than the slower one. ie more reward.

I believe that what is fair and what is justified is a reward structure that produces the most science for the resources that are input into it. The more efficient we are, the sooner we'll find ET (if he's discoverable...).

Which is what's happening, so i still can't see what the problem is.

One reason, Grant, is that They are determined to not let that happen. As msattler reminds us, the multipliers are being adjusted to do away with recognition (and hence rewards) for efficiency improvements such as optimizations.

Kudo's to You Bill - Kudo's . . .