Now, I somehow would expect a more or less gaussian distribution. For some reason the 300-499 group is exceptionally small. There must be system based reason why less users fall into that category.

Or, it could have been a buglet in the code. Which has now been corrected so the 300-499 group should be accurate. Let this be a lesson, never code sober.

May I question that correction
That jumps the total active users 9000 in one day
which is not consistent with the number of users thru the month

I think the bug, or typo, threw everything off. Instead of >=300&<500 at one point in the script, i had >=400&<500. As such, all numbers prior to 07/28/10 are going to be off. From that point on they should be accurate. Disclaimer: Unless I've fat-fingered something else yet to be discovered. :)

Now, I somehow would expect a more or less gaussian distribution. For some reason the 300-499 group is exceptionally small. There must be system based reason why less users fall into that category.

Or, it could have been a buglet in the code. Which has now been corrected so the 300-499 group should be accurate. Let this be a lesson, never code sober.

May I question that correction
That jumps the total active users 9000 in one day
which is not consistent with the number of users thru the month

The total number of users hasn't changed, even after the number in the group with an RAC between 300 & 499 has been corrected. If I sum the users per RAC group between 22 & 27 July, I get a number that averages 933,846 users. That, on average, is 175,555 users less than the average of the total that Scarecrow shows for those six days, which is 1,109,401 users. Presumably, the difference is the group with RAC = 0. Presumably, also, the correct size of that group (RAC = 0) is in fact around 167,479, using the corrected data of 28 July. And yes, as I understand the Scarecrow, the number of active users was previously understated by around 8,076.

---

Doesn't matter. Nobody should be more important than anyone else.

or less

Last time I checked, no one has actually said the larger crunchers are worthless. But I have seen lots of larger crunchers threaten if they don't get their way with the project, they'll leave and that the project needs to keep them happy.

Hi Ned...

---

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

The total number of users hasn't changed, even after the number in the group with an RAC between 300 & 499 has been corrected. If I sum the users per RAC group between 22 & 27 July, I get a number that averages 933,846 users. That, on average, is 175,555 users less than the average of the total that Scarecrow shows for those six days, which is 1,109,401 users. Presumably, the difference is the group with RAC = 0. Presumably, also, the correct size of that group (RAC = 0) is in fact around 167,479, using the corrected data of 28 July. And yes, as I understand the Scarecrow, the number of active users was previously understated by around 8,076.

Ok what you are saying there are additional users with 0 credit not even listed
Which takes me back to what I said
anything less than 1 should be ignored
Instead of >0 <1 that should be <1 period
adding those with 0 to the less than 1 still only make only a fraction of a percent
that's less than calculation rounding errors

---

Last time I checked, no one has actually said the larger crunchers are worthless. But I have seen lots of larger crunchers threaten if they don't get their way with the project, they'll leave and that the project needs to keep them happy.

Hi Ned...

I think Ned is "." not "$o |>0/|/3" ;-)

Gruß,
Gundolf

Last time I checked, no one has actually said the larger crunchers are worthless. But I have seen lots of larger crunchers threaten if they don't get their way with the project, they'll leave and that the project needs to keep them happy.

Hi Ned...

I think Ned is "." not "$o |>0/|/3" ;-)

Gruß,
Gundolf

Opps you are right got my funny symbols mixed up....

---

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