Stats for SETI@home only

Message boards : Number crunching : Stats for SETI@home only
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8

AuthorMessage
Scarecrow

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 00
Posts: 4520
Credit: 486,601
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1020676 - Posted: 29 Jul 2010, 20:12:21 UTC - in response to Message 1020673.  


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. :)
ID: 1020676 · Report as offensive
Profile John Neale
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 00
Posts: 634
Credit: 7,246,513
RAC: 9
South Africa
Message 1020682 - Posted: 29 Jul 2010, 20:46:57 UTC - in response to Message 1020673.  


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.


ID: 1020682 · Report as offensive
Profile hiamps
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 4292
Credit: 72,971,319
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1020683 - Posted: 29 Jul 2010, 20:49:37 UTC - in response to Message 1020485.  

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!
ID: 1020683 · Report as offensive
Robert Ribbeck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 02
Posts: 644
Credit: 5,283,174
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1020688 - Posted: 29 Jul 2010, 21:27:30 UTC - in response to Message 1020682.  


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
ID: 1020688 · Report as offensive
Profile Gundolf Jahn

Send message
Joined: 19 Sep 00
Posts: 3184
Credit: 446,358
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 1020691 - Posted: 29 Jul 2010, 22:04:43 UTC - in response to Message 1020683.  

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
ID: 1020691 · Report as offensive
Profile hiamps
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 4292
Credit: 72,971,319
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1020707 - Posted: 29 Jul 2010, 23:37:12 UTC - in response to Message 1020691.  

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!
ID: 1020707 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8

Message boards : Number crunching : Stats for SETI@home only


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.