How is it possible to get a negative credit on a result?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=798944925

While my credit was -0.69 (not a big loss in points) the idea of getting a negative credit on a validated task just seems a little wrong.

---

It was thought it was fixed a while back from the discussion in another thread. http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=64611&nowrap=true#1134740

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

it may not be a record , but years ago on the beta site i got -10,660,161.12 for a WU ... things get fixed over time ...

Ed F

How is it possible to get a negative credit on a result?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=798944925

While my credit was -0.69 (not a big loss in points) the idea of getting a negative credit on a validated task just seems a little wrong.

I think the negative credit in that WU was caused by the second task listed - 2030068133, returned 10 Aug 2011 21:28:54 UTC. That matches the cause we tracked it down to last time (a host running the experimental BOINC v6.13.0), and the timing is just about reasonable - we thought it was fixed around 04 Aug, but it might have been a few days later. I'll repeat the report, anyway, just in case something has come unstuck since last time.

Thanks for pointing it out.

I've had a reply on my report. Yes, it was the same problem as last time - a left-over old result.

There were a few others like that, which have now been cleaned up in the database. And, in a belt-and-braces exercise, the validator should now also look out for any which slip through the net and correct them on the fly.

So, this should have been positively the last one we see.....

....unless, as always, you know better.