Now if we could show the number of units returned by each bar of crunchers

You mean total credit? NEZ has a RAC of zero but by far the highest total credit.

                                                                   Joe

Now if we could show the number of units returned by each bar of crunchers

You mean total credit? NEZ has a RAC of zero but by far the highest total credit.

                                                                   Joe

Already chased out by the jeering section?

---

Janice

Now if we could show the number of units returned by each bar of crunchers

You mean total credit? NEZ has a RAC of zero but by far the highest total credit.

                                                                   Joe

Already chased out by the jeering section?

No. Old story. Nez was chased out by getting fired by using thousands of school computers to run Seti@Home without permission...

Giz.

---

A proud GPU User Server Donor!

Ok, get out the magnifying glasses and bug spray. The RAC/User chart now has some little numbers below the columns. They're supposed to be the number of credits that members of that "RAC group" received since the last update. I have no idea how/if/why they are accurate, but I think they are.
They are obtained by adding up the total credits for each user in a given group from the previous day, then subtracting it from the same totals from today's stats. The difference is credit received since the last update....right?!
It's pushing 04:00 here, the keg is nearly empty, and the fireworks have me half deaf, so I'll let you guys count the rivets and let me know if any of it makes sense, or not, whilst I get some much needed beauty sleep.

Oh..yeah... I made a dedicated page for rhe RAC stuff. Here's the link if the original one doesn't redirect right....
http://bluenorthernsoftware.com/scarecrow/sahstats/rac/

Makes sense to me that should show a close enough wu count
Why no to plot that instead of the number or crunchers ?

or on a second graph

---

Sorry, if that was made clear before... but

do your group numbers include the higher groups?
i.e. are you really plotting >1 >10 >25 >100 etc.
or are you plotting 1-9 10-24 25-99 100-299 etc. ?

Might be interesting to see a pie chart of % credit from the respective groups. i.e. the relative contribution of small medium and big crunchers.

---

Carola
-------
I'm multilingual - I can misunderstand people in several languages!

there is so few of us when you look that chart, only 172 xxx

do your group numbers include the higher groups?
i.e. are you really plotting >1 >10 >25 >100 etc.
or are you plotting 1-9 10-24 25-99 100-299 etc. ?

they are >1 >10 >25 etc cumulative not subtracting other columns

the first largest column is basically all active users

there is so few of us when you look that chart, only 172 xxx

yes, and it is dropping.

---

Janice

Ok, get out the magnifying glasses and bug spray. The RAC/User chart now has some little numbers below the columns. They're supposed to be the number of credits that members of that "RAC group" received since the last update. I have no idea how/if/why they are accurate, but I think they are.
They are obtained by adding up the total credits for each user in a given group from the previous day, then subtracting it from the same totals from today's stats. The difference is credit received since the last update....right?!
It's pushing 04:00 here, the keg is nearly empty, and the fireworks have me half deaf, so I'll let you guys count the rivets and let me know if any of it makes sense, or not, whilst I get some much needed beauty sleep.

Oh..yeah... I made a dedicated page for rhe RAC stuff. Here's the link if the original one doesn't redirect right....
http://bluenorthernsoftware.com/scarecrow/sahstats/rac/

It's only just gone midnight here, so I don't have nearly as much of an excuse if I'm spouting rubbish ...

Scarecrow, I've been peering at your numbers using a magnifying glass, and something seems amiss to me. Simply put, the "number of credits" seem WAAAY too large. According to BOINCstats, the current RAC ("credit per day") of SETI@home is about 73-million. If I add up all your numbers, I get 4.1-billion. If I use your data to calculate the sum of (no. of users x median RAC), I get an estimated RAC for SETI@home of about 165-million, which is larger than the BOINCstats value, and suggests that using the "median RAC" overestimates the average credit earned by each group.

Or have I misunderstood your numbers completely?

BTW, I think your graph should include a ">30,000" bar for consistency.

---

BTW, I think your graph should include a ">30,000" bar for consistency.

Would make sence if there were more users in that range
above 5000 is only a couple percent of all the users
I personally think the highest bar with only 2 users is overkill

---

Well it's now showing some 54 x 10^9 'daily' credits :)
BoincStats has 77 x 10^9 total credit and about 120 x 10^6 for yesterday.

Looks like total credit to me ;)

---

Carola
-------
I'm multilingual - I can misunderstand people in several languages!

Well it's now showing some 54 x 10^9 'daily' credits :)
BoincStats has 77 x 10^9 total credit and about 120 x 10^6 for yesterday.
Looks like total credit to me ;)

yea total all time credits to date

if every one of the 932,332 with a rac of <1 were still contributing
that's 932,332 max per day

2 users with rac of 300,000 is a mimimum of 600,000 per day
21 users with rac of 100,000 is a minimum of 2,100,000 per day
66 users wit rac of 50,000 is a mimimum 3,300,000 per day

that's 6 million minimum per day for just the top 3

---

that's 6 million minimum per day for just the top 3

Or about 5% of the total RAC reported by BOINCStats. [rhetorical question]So, do we piss off 5% to keep the 95% happy?[/rhetorical question]

Or, should the project be run to accomplish the original science goals? And who knows more about what that means, the scientists or us out here in the peanut gallery?

---

Using Scarecrow's latest data (love your work, Scarecrow!) plus a few assumptions, I have tried to obtain a picture of the total contribution of active users to the current SETI@home RAC. I estimate that about 56% of the contribution is from users with an RAC of between 100 and 4,999, and they represent about 44% of the active users.

In summary:
RAC <100: 3.8% of RAC, 54.7% of active users
RAC 100-4,999: 55.8% of RAC, 44.0% of active users
RAC 5,000-30,000: 25.5% of RAC, 1.2% of active users
RAC >30,000: 14.8% of RAC, 0.11% of active users

I think this gives a useful snapshot of the current SETI@home user demographics.

---

Using Scarecrow's latest data (love your work, Scarecrow!) plus a few assumptions, I have tried to obtain a picture of the total contribution of active users to the current SETI@home RAC. I estimate that about 56% of the contribution is from users with an RAC of between 100 and 4,999, and they represent about 44% of the active users.

In summary:
RAC <100: 3.8% of RAC, 54.7% of active users
RAC 100-4,999: 55.8% of RAC, 44.0% of active users
RAC 5,000-30,000: 25.5% of RAC, 1.2% of active users
RAC >30,000: 14.8% of RAC, 0.11% of active users

I think this gives a useful snapshot of the current SETI@home user demographics.

Very interesting analysis....that .11% of us could contribute close to 15% of the work being done is quite a feather in our caps, I think.

Maybe our buddy Scarecrow could come up with a companion graph to display this information also.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

just using the minimum rac of each column

you get 2.58% of all users (those above 3,000)
who add a minimum of over half of the wu being done daily

I'd say you really don't want to piss off that 2.58%

---

If I could add one small change for Scarecrow.................

On my screen the grid at the bottom (with the date) seems to be center aligned on the page while the black chart is aligned to the left edge. Can we change one or the other?

Thanks then it would be perfect!

---

Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....

just using the minimum rac of each column

you get 2.58% of all users (those above 3,000)
who add a minimum of over half of the wu being done daily

I'd say you really don't want to piss off that 2.58%

Am I missing a more recent chart? From http://bluenorthernsoftware.com/scarecrow/sahstats/rac/ I get 2.58% of users with greater RAC than 3,000, but the RAC this group contributes only 27.6% of the total (5.75+6.18+7.71+2.37+2.76+1.8+0.11).

And I'm still not clear why this group should be more pissed off then the rest of us that are have trouble getting enough work to get through the outage. And since the purpose of the extended outage is to do more of the actual science (as opposed to helping us crunch for meaningless credit) why is anybody pissed off?

---

If I could add one small change for Scarecrow.................

On my screen the grid at the bottom (with the date) seems to be center aligned on the page while the black chart is aligned to the left edge. Can we change one or the other?

Thanks then it would be perfect!

Boy, those playful Geeks can sure be demanding! ;)
See if it looks more better this way.