Good point. We each need to feel appreciated and that our efforts/resources are not being squandered by screw-ups and poor planning, which are out of our control.

Personal feeling should not get in the way of volunteer work. That anyone somehow feels neglected or mistreated or otherwise is really on them. The project is as simple as installing the software, attaching to a project or two and letting the software handle the rest.

The fact that some people want to be more involved than that is on them, but they shouldn't let personal feelings get in the way if something isn't to their liking. Either you agree with the goal or you do not.

---

Surely this only matters if you're more bothered about the credits than the search? I downloaded Seti@home 'cause I wanted to help (hopefully) find aliens, not 'cause I wanted to play king-of-the-mountain one-upmanship games about who did the most work, and I'm sure the majority of users feel the same. If there's no work available then there's no work available; why worry unless your scared someone else is going to 'beat' you while you're waiting?

I can see another reason why someone would be bothered about no work, that has nothing to do with credits, and more to do with wasting electricity when you thought your pc was running WU's, just to come back to it and find it's not. It's not always about credits.

Wouldn't that be their own fault for wasting electricity by not having their computer go into suspend or standby when the CPU is idle? Its great that volunteers leave their computers on to crunch SETI, but SETI never asked that. They only want what you aren't using while its powered on, such as during word processing or other non-CPU intensive tasks.

If you choose to leave your computer on, knowing that SETI may run out of work from time to time, and you don't properly configure your computer, I'd say that's your fault more than the project's.

Wasn't about blame, or if it's a valid reason for others. It was another reason other than credit, that may be valid to the OP and/or others that I was speaking of.

---

Surely this only matters if you're more bothered about the credits than the search? I downloaded Seti@home 'cause I wanted to help (hopefully) find aliens, not 'cause I wanted to play king-of-the-mountain one-upmanship games about who did the most work, and I'm sure the majority of users feel the same. If there's no work available then there's no work available; why worry unless your scared someone else is going to 'beat' you while you're waiting?

I can see another reason why someone would be bothered about no work, that has nothing to do with credits, and more to do with wasting electricity when you thought your pc was running WU's, just to come back to it and find it's not. It's not always about credits.

Wouldn't that be their own fault for wasting electricity by not having their computer go into suspend or standby when the CPU is idle? Its great that volunteers leave their computers on to crunch SETI, but SETI never asked that. They only want what you aren't using while its powered on, such as during word processing or other non-CPU intensive tasks.

If you choose to leave your computer on, knowing that SETI may run out of work from time to time, and you don't properly configure your computer, I'd say that's your fault more than the project's.

Wasn't about blame, or if it's a valid reason for others. It was another reason other than credit, that may be valid to the OP and/or others that I was speaking of.

Indeed it is. Regardless if its believed to be a valid reason for others or not, according to your suggestion, they are trying to blame SETI for "wasting" their electricity. In fact, the blame should be placed firmly on their own shoulders for not taking necessary precautions had they accepted that there will be times when SETI cannot send out work for some reason or another.

---

Surely this only matters if you're more bothered about the credits than the search? I downloaded Seti@home 'cause I wanted to help (hopefully) find aliens, not 'cause I wanted to play king-of-the-mountain one-upmanship games about who did the most work, and I'm sure the majority of users feel the same. If there's no work available then there's no work available; why worry unless your scared someone else is going to 'beat' you while you're waiting?

I can see another reason why someone would be bothered about no work, that has nothing to do with credits, and more to do with wasting electricity when you thought your pc was running WU's, just to come back to it and find it's not. It's not always about credits.

Wouldn't that be their own fault for wasting electricity by not having their computer go into suspend or standby when the CPU is idle? Its great that volunteers leave their computers on to crunch SETI, but SETI never asked that. They only want what you aren't using while its powered on, such as during word processing or other non-CPU intensive tasks.

If you choose to leave your computer on, knowing that SETI may run out of work from time to time, and you don't properly configure your computer, I'd say that's your fault more than the project's.

Wasn't about blame, or if it's a valid reason for others. It was another reason other than credit, that may be valid to the OP and/or others that I was speaking of.

Indeed it is. Regardless if its a valid reason for others or not, according to your suggestion, they are trying to blame SETI for "wasting" their electricity. In fact, the blame should be placed firmly on their own shoulders for not taking necessary precautions had they accepted that there will be times when SETI cannot send out work for some reason or another.

NO, according to my statement it is merely a reason why they may feel upset about not getting new work. I never said any blame belonged to anyone. My comment didn't have to do with the person wanting to quit SETI because of what they percieve as a problem, but to the statement that it could only be becasue of credits.

---

Your argument is that the project does not expose all of the metrics, and if you can't see them, they obviously do not exist. You claim that if you can't measure "quality" then no one else is doing it, formally or informally.

Ned, I've restated my perspective several times but will again as a favor to you. Please call Evelyn Wood for further assistance.

Seti publishes no quality indicators. The ones they do publish are operational and do not indicate how well they are doing, just that they are doing.

If they use unpublished quality-type indicators to make decisions or to test the system, great. I doubt it, however. This claim seems to be merely your assumption. Otherwise we would see statements like 'modification X reduced the no-work-available fault indicator by Y%'. Instead, all we get is 'parameter change X seems to help by decreasing load on server Y but server Z is now looking rather gamey'. This is not unwanted information, and gives us a plot to follow. But it hardly tells us much regarding how well they/we are doing, or how they decided some change is 'good'.

I'll try to write a bumper sticker about modern operations theory for you: "Invention is all about intuition; operations is all about statistics." Maybe too long?

Since September 2004 i am crunching for Seti, but i have to admit that i am getting upset about it quite often.

Since a couple of days my machines are running almost dry and i barely get new work on the regular bases.

After studing the forum, i believe that this is a well known issue that is persident in that project for ages. but no one really seemt to even try to fix it.

This is not a senseless complaint, but i have deceidet to let my machines finish all workunits in queue and then leave Seti for the following reasons:

We are all volunteers here, but regarding the "no work avaiable" issue those in charge here seem to be a bit ignorant.

I also believe that maintaining a steady workflow is a responsibility of those in charge here, but they even fail doing that. When people complain about it, they will be either ignored or insulted by others here in the community. in so far i believe the best way to show how much i do disagree with such kind of operation, is to leave that project, and join other projects with a more matured infrastructure and better conditions as have i been seen in here in the last 2 yrs.


Ohh by the way, i am not a native english speaker, so if u will find wrong grammar or spellings, you are authorized to keep them.

;-)

Daniel,

stay cool. There is no need for you to leave the project. When you have got a problem with it, post it here or on your team web-side. I have seen, that you are a member of PD3Now. This is a very strong team with a great bandwidth of knowledge.
As Sutaru posted before, put more WU´s in stock. This would solve your problem. It is a very simple solution and the best.

It would be great of you, when you will change your mind and stay.

---

Actually if you give BOINC a few days to refill a WU cache it tends to almost always able to do it. In anticipation of moving my PC to somewhere without internet access for a week, I actually bumped up the WU cache from 5 days to 10 days, about a week or so before the anticipated move.

And then through that period of 9 days I managed to always fill up the CPU workload 100%; so over a longish period of time the project manage to buffers quite well for these fluctuations. There had not been that many periods recently where there are prolonged drought that a 5-7 days WU cache can't take care off.

Anyway the real question we should ask, in the end, is why we choose SETI rather than some other project (e.g. a particular project that overmarkets themselves and their potential - a molecular chemistry project was often marketed/masqueraded as looking for a cure for cancer ...) in the first place to crunch for. And it is worth reminding ourselves once in a while the worth of the project, even through the frustrations of what we perceive as the weakness in the project management.

FWIW, I have decided to not worry about it.
There are plenty of worthwhile BOINC projects to work on when your "primary" project is having trouble.
For me - I have SETI @ 90% and ROSETTA @ 10% - both with <1 day cache.
When SETI is down, the machine(s) works on Rosetta, and then catches back up when Seti again becomes available.

I can see another reason why someone would be bothered about no work, that has nothing to do with credits, and more to do with wasting electricity when you thought your pc was running WU's, just to come back to it and find it's not. It's not always about credits.

And thats exactly my point.

Ok keeping the RAC up or even increasing it is another point since we do in our team quite a lot of races ;-)

---

Your argument is that the project does not expose all of the metrics, and if you can't see them, they obviously do not exist. You claim that if you can't measure "quality" then no one else is doing it, formally or informally.

Ned, I've restated my perspective several times but will again as a favor to you. Please call Evelyn Wood for further assistance.

Seti publishes no quality indicators. The ones they do publish are operational and do not indicate how well they are doing, just that they are doing.

If they use unpublished quality-type indicators to make decisions or to test the system, great. I doubt it, however. This claim seems to be merely your assumption. Otherwise we would see statements like 'modification X reduced the no-work-available fault indicator by Y%'. Instead, all we get is 'parameter change X seems to help by decreasing load on server Y but server Z is now looking rather gamey'. This is not unwanted information, and gives us a plot to follow. But it hardly tells us much regarding how well they/we are doing, or how they decided some change is 'good'.

I'll try to write a bumper sticker about modern operations theory for you: "Invention is all about intuition; operations is all about statistics." Maybe too long?

PhonAcq,

Why resort to the insults?

I'm trying to have a sincere discussion of the facts. I'm not trying to question your parentage, your education, or your skills.

In exchange, you've pointed out repeatedly that because I disagree with you, I'm a naysayer, I'm illiterate, and I've suggested you are a Nazi.

The only thing I've accused you of is name calling. It's tedious, boring and hateful.

So, here it is: We (by which I mean you) are not entitled to the metrics you demand. The project may, at their own discretion, reveal such metrics as they wish to reveal. Others they may withhold at their option.

If they do not reveal something, it is likely because they simply don't have the resources to devote to the inevitable arguments that will break out due to misinterpreting those results.

Your incessant campaign to eliminate "out of work" messages is a great example. You insist that these are egregious errors, when the BOINC documentation explains that they are of minor interest -- and why.

Enough with the personal insults. They're not productive.

Your insistence that there is no emphasis at all on Quality is insulting to a bunch of people who work very hard to make BOINC and SETI@Home happen.

-- Ned

---

Indeed it is. Regardless if its a valid reason for others or not, according to your suggestion, they are trying to blame SETI for "wasting" their electricity. In fact, the blame should be placed firmly on their own shoulders for not taking necessary precautions had they accepted that there will be times when SETI cannot send out work for some reason or another.

NO, according to my statement it is merely a reason why they may feel upset about not getting new work. I never said any blame belonged to anyone. My comment didn't have to do with the person wanting to quit SETI because of what they percieve as a problem, but to the statement that it could only be becasue of credits.

In Daniel's original post, he says "maintaining a steady workflow is a responsibility of those in charge here" and I think we should hold SETI@Home to their promises, not to some standard we choose for them.

On this particular issue, SETI@Home promises that there will be times with no work.

We forget that because, as a general rule, the project keeps up pretty well. I can't remember the last time I ran out.

SETI Classic did not cache work. BOINC does. Worried? Carry a big cache, and don't expect to be completely full at all times.

---

Surely this only matters if you're more bothered about the credits than the search? I downloaded Seti@home 'cause I wanted to help (hopefully) find aliens, not 'cause I wanted to play king-of-the-mountain one-upmanship games about who did the most work, and I'm sure the majority of users feel the same. If there's no work available then there's no work available; why worry unless your scared someone else is going to 'beat' you while you're waiting?

I can see another reason why someone would be bothered about no work, that has nothing to do with credits, and more to do with wasting electricity when you thought your pc was running WU's, just to come back to it and find it's not. It's not always about credits.

Wouldn't that be their own fault for wasting electricity by not having their computer go into suspend or standby when the CPU is idle? Its great that volunteers leave their computers on to crunch SETI, but SETI never asked that. They only want what you aren't using while its powered on, such as during word processing or other non-CPU intensive tasks.

If you choose to leave your computer on, knowing that SETI may run out of work from time to time, and you don't properly configure your computer, I'd say that's your fault more than the project's.

Wasn't about blame, or if it's a valid reason for others. It was another reason other than credit, that may be valid to the OP and/or others that I was speaking of.

Indeed it is. Regardless if its a valid reason for others or not, according to your suggestion, they are trying to blame SETI for "wasting" their electricity. In fact, the blame should be placed firmly on their own shoulders for not taking necessary precautions had they accepted that there will be times when SETI cannot send out work for some reason or another.

NO, according to my statement it is merely a reason why they may feel upset about not getting new work. I never said any blame belonged to anyone. My comment didn't have to do with the person wanting to quit SETI because of what they percieve as a problem, but to the statement that it could only be becasue of credits.

Why would they feel upset? They are upset because their CPU is sitting idle, taking up electricity that they have to pay for. Why would that upset them? Because they were under the false impression that the project would always have work, or that they would always be able to fetch that work. Why would they quit SETI over this? Because they feel the project didn't provide them with work that they felt should always be provided.

If they are not blaming SETI, then they would not be leaving SETI. They would simply wait until they got more work; join another project; or simply have their system go into standby when the CPU goes idle.

I understand you're countering the "...its only about credits" argument, which you have a successful case, but your argument is still about blame whether you want to see it that way or not.

---

I can see another reason why someone would be bothered about no work, that has nothing to do with credits, and more to do with wasting electricity when you thought your pc was running WU's, just to come back to it and find it's not. It's not always about credits.

And thats exactly my point.

Ok keeping the RAC up or even increasing it is another point since we do in our team quite a lot of races ;-)

...so then it is about credit and RAC. I believe that it should have been obvious with a title like "Game over, SETI".

---

... When people complain about it, they will be either ignored or insulted by others here in the community. ...

If you are in it for the credit or for the science, it does not matter as both sides are helping the project out.

Some people do not know about anything behind the science, but still crunch and like to see their credit go up.

If they notice a problem on the rare occasion that they check on their computer, and they do come in here, they should not be told they are bad because they care about credits. It does not service to the project at all.

I rarely voice my concern over AP due to somebody telling me that I should not question. I have not been part of SETI since '99 just for credits, but if my computer does work, I would like for it to get the credit.

---

Why would they feel upset? They are upset because their CPU is sitting idle, taking up electricity that they have to pay for. Why would that upset them? Because they were under the false impression that the project would always have work, or that they would always be able to fetch that work. Why would they quit SETI over this? Because they feel the project didn't provide them with work that they felt should always be provided.

I think you take a lot for granted in your presumption. Maybe they get upset about idle cpu's. Maybe they just quit becuae the electric bill was too high and they didn't think it worth having the cpu idle. Didn't have to blame SETI or have ill feeling, just didn't feel it was worth it. No blame, just economics. I also think they may well have blame for SETI and leave for that reason, but that wasn't my point, it was yours.

If they are not blaming SETI, then they would not be leaving SETI. They would simply wait until they got more work; join another project; or simply have their system go into standby when the CPU goes idle.

I agree most people would probably act this way, but we were discussing someone that might not.

I understand you're countering the "...its only about credits" argument, which you have a successful case, but your argument is still about blame whether you want to see it that way or not.

I can see it can be about blame but I don't believe it has to be.

Edit: I should also say I do agree that it is their responsibility not SETI's as you mention.

---

Why would they feel upset? They are upset because their CPU is sitting idle, taking up electricity that they have to pay for. Why would that upset them? Because they were under the false impression that the project would always have work, or that they would always be able to fetch that work. Why would they quit SETI over this? Because they feel the project didn't provide them with work that they felt should always be provided.

I think you take a lot for granted in your presumption. Maybe they get upset about idle cpu's. Maybe they just quit becuae the electric bill was too high and they didn't think it worth having the cpu idle. Didn't have to blame SETI or have ill feeling, just didn't feel it was worth it. No blame, just economics. I also think they may well have blame for SETI and leave for that reason, but that wasn't my point, it was yours.

As a general rule, when something doesn't meet ones' expectations, one gets upset.

That can be because they were misled -- because they were told one thing, and what actually happened is totally different.

Or it may be because their expectations are wrong.

Daniel is unhappy because he expected the project to always be ready to deliver work, and when it frequently does not, the project did not meet his expectations, and his frustrations are understandable.

He isn't the only one with that expectation, and he isn't the only one unhappy because the project does not meet their standards.

One way for people to be happier (if they want to be) is to expect the project to live up to their promises -- and they promise that work will not always be available.

Notice that I didn't mention credit, idle CPUs, or electricity.

---

Or you can just blame Misfit and let it go at that.

---

PROUD MEMBER OF Team Starfire World BOINC

I think you take a lot for granted in your presumption. Maybe they get upset about idle cpu's. Maybe they just quit becuae the electric bill was too high and they didn't think it worth having the cpu idle. Didn't have to blame SETI or have ill feeling, just didn't feel it was worth it. No blame, just economics. I also think they may well have blame for SETI and leave for that reason, but that wasn't my point, it was yours.

No, not for granted at all. In fact, I am keeping common human thought processes in mind during the discussion. Sure, they can get upset because the electric bill is too high. Sure, they can think that its not worth having the CPU idle. Or they can think that its not worth it.

But SETI must be in there somewhere with blame. If they're looking to make cutbacks, then they will start looking at non-essential areas of their spending that they can do without. Yes, simple economics. However, when one starts to consider what things they can do without, and they start thinking about their irritation of idle CPUs and wasted electricity, they are going to think "why are my CPUs idle?" "Because SETI isn't giving me work, their freaking servers are down again!" So SETI becomes a prime candidate for elimination.

I think you're putting too much emphasis on the word "blame" and not focusing on the fact that blame doesn't have to be a malicious feeling associated with it (but it usually does). Take the alternate possible reality: what if SETI always had work and the CPUs never went idle? Would they still be considering their participation in the project, or discontinuing it as the case may be?

We all know there's tough economic times in the world today. But if blame weren't associated, then one wouldn't stop by here to complain about it; they'd just leave. But on some level, there would still be non-malicious blame that they could not justify their own spending and participation.

I agree most people would probably act this way, but we were discussing someone that might not.

I am discussing someone who leaves the project because they can no longer afford the costs to participate. No matter what, there's still a level of blame on some conscious level that deems it too expensive to keep considering involvement with.

I can see it can be about blame but I don't believe it has to be.

I think it does. You have to examine the human thought process on all levels. Sure, when someone cannot stay and decides to leave for economic reasons, this does not mean it has to be a malicious move, nor does "blame" have to be malicious.

If I can no longer afford driving everywhere due to high gas prices and other economic pressures in my budget, then indirectly I would blame the high gas prices and would feel forced to stop long distance traveling. My "blame" wouldn't be malicious, simply that I feel I cannot afford it. Why can I not afford it? Because my expectation of gas prices staying the same all the time where unfounded and now I have to make cutbacks. It wasn't a malicious blame, but it indeed would be a major factor in my reasoning for my cutback.

---

If they notice a problem on the rare occasion that they check on their computer, and they do come in here, they should not be told they are bad because they care about credits. It does not service to the project at all.

I think people are too sensitive if they think they're being told their "bad" for caring about credits. You're always going to have a different group of people who disagree with you, and that group has just as much right to speak their opinions as you do. The fact that these people have a right to speak up does not mean that it should be held against the project itself - so therefore it would have nothing to do with servicing the project at all.

In fact, it could easily be argued that those who watch their credits too closely, and speaking up at every opportunity to complain about how its all unfair do more harm to the scientific goals than good.

...but then again, if there weren't someone looking closely at it to make sure it is as fair as possible, or even someone who had to look closely at it to design it in the first place, then we wouldn't have a credit system in the first place.

There's nothing wrong with reporting issues about credit, but there is something wrong with the intent behind it. If someone posts that there was an unexplained discrepancy, but didn't show anger about any perceived loss, then it would be most helpful to see if there's something wrong. However, if said person does get angry or irate over it, then their intent is too personal and they should probably take a step back.

Note that I am not including you in any of this, just explaining why discussing credit is so excitable to many people on the forums.

I rarely voice my concern over AP due to somebody telling me that I should not question. I have not been part of SETI since '99 just for credits, but if my computer does work, I would like for it to get the credit.

As with any crowd of people, you're going to have a few people that are rude, or are perceived to be rude, or the OP is simply too sensitive. I would hope that we do not think that simply because someone is trying to be helpful and ease your worries that we do not feel insulted when they actually tell you "don't worry".

I looked over your rather short posting history and see that most all of the responses to your posts have been rather nice, or at least certainly not what I would consider rude, and I certainly do not see anyone telling you that you should not question. Indeed, there are many people here who don't mind explaining things to people who really are just questioning to understand. But there's also a lot of supporters who don't like the overly anxious people who get upset over a fictitious system that has no actual bearing on anyone's lives here.

---

No, not for granted at all. In fact, I am keeping common human thought processes in mind during the discussion. Sure, they can get upset because the electric bill is too high. Sure, they can think that its not worth having the CPU idle. Or they can think that its not worth it.

But SETI must be in there somewhere with blame. If they're looking to make cutbacks, then they will start looking at non-essential areas of their spending that they can do without. Yes, simple economics. However, when one starts to consider what things they can do without, and they start thinking about their irritation of idle CPUs and wasted electricity, they are going to think "why are my CPUs idle?" "Because SETI isn't giving me work, their freaking servers are down again!" So SETI becomes a prime candidate for elimination.

I think you're putting too much emphasis on the word "blame" and not focusing on the fact that blame doesn't have to be a malicious feeling associated with it (but it usually does). Take the alternate possible reality: what if SETI always had work and the CPUs never went idle? Would they still be considering their participation in the project, or discontinuing it as the case may be?

Actaully I do think that they could think of leaving for the same reason. The electric bill was too high and it was determined it's not worth it, and could even blame the electic company instead of SETI, though I still think it could just be a realiztion without blaming someone. Or maybe you'd feel they'd just be blaming themselves. The end result is they still feel they have to quit participating.

I also know that blame doesn't have to have a malicious feeling associated with it, but that's the only examples you've used. There are other ways people come to the conclusion in this type of circumstance (in my opinion) other than blaming SETI, my previous example being one.

We all know there's tough economic times in the world today. But if blame weren't associated, then one wouldn't stop by here to complain about it; they'd just leave. But on some level, there would still be non-malicious blame that they could not justify their own spending and participation.

As I mentioned earlier I wasn't speaking about the person that started this thread, it was a hypothetical situation that only related to the point of mine you mentioned earlier of it being about credits only, so associating that scenario into all possible scenario's I don't think applies. In another scenario the person might feel bad or even ashamed they feel the have to quit SETI.

I can see it can be about blame but I don't believe it has to be.

I think it does. You have to examine the human thought process on all levels. Sure, when someone cannot stay and decides to leave for economic reasons, this does not mean it has to be a malicious move, nor does "blame" have to be malicious.

If I can no longer afford driving everywhere due to high gas prices and other economic pressures in my budget, then indirectly I would blame the high gas prices and would feel forced to stop long distance traveling. My "blame" wouldn't be malicious, simply that I feel I cannot afford it. Why can I not afford it? Because my expectation of gas prices staying the same all the time where unfounded and now I have to make cutbacks. It wasn't a malicious blame, but it indeed would be a major factor in my reasoning for my cutback.

Or maybe you'd buy a car that got better gas mileage than the previous car and still be able to drive everywhere. There's lots of scenarios that don't involve blaming someone or something. Sure the effects have a bearing on the outcome, but cold also be just a reaction to a circumstance, such as coming to the realization it was more expensive than the person realized.

Like you've said, the root of it lies with the person, not SETI, and I agree with that completely. I only posted in this thread because of the statement that anyone upset with not getting work had to be motivated by credit. I appreciate the discussion.

---