Why is the credit for work done for Seti one tenth of that done for Einstein? Credit granted for Seti work is very small.

---

We are not here for the credit, we are here for the science. ;)

Cheers.

---

Choose your favourite:
a) Because that's how the two projects wish to reward their volunteers
b) Because S@H has implemented the BOINC "New Credit" system in full, whereas Einstein has avoided doing so
c) S@H knows it has the biggest and most diverse pool of volunteers whereas Einstein "buys" it volunteers with credit that is worth nothing


I dare say others can add to this list of options

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Choose your favourite:
a) Because that's how the two projects wish to reward their volunteers
b) Because S@H has implemented the BOINC "New Credit" system in full, whereas Einstein has avoided doing so
c) S@H knows it has the biggest and most diverse pool of volunteers whereas Einstein "buys" it volunteers with credit that is worth nothing


I dare say others can add to this list of options

d) Compared to S@H, Einstein has very short deadlines for the WUs, so your computer "is forced" to run Einstein with high priority.

Compared to S@H, Einstein has very short deadlines for the WUs, so your computer "is forced" to run Einstein with high priority.

The reason I stopped Einstein, I am in in for the science not being forced to crunch one project over another.

---

S@H units always run first, even with deadlines. My Seti units take the same amount of time. I have been doing this since S@H started, before 1999. I am sixty some years old and now retired. I think S@H has enough time to gather a base; just like others. Einstein does science, others do science. They have more to show for the effort. I think it is time for S@H to compete for time. I am cutting back. Do what you like. The question still stands, why does S@H not give more credits?

---

Compared to S@H, Einstein has very short deadlines for the WUs, so your computer "is forced" to run Einstein with high priority.

The reason I stopped Einstein, I am in in for the science not being forced to crunch one project over another.

Einstein forces no such thing: I don't think I've ever seen an Einstein task run in high priority.

What forces high priority is a user choice of cache settings which don't play 'nice' with project deadlines - we used to see that a lot when SETI had 7-day deadlines for shorties (before the task durations were doubled by increasing the sensitivity of the search). The rule of thumb when running more than one project is that your chosen cache size should be no more than [shortest deadline of any task on any of the projects] / [number of separate projects running].

So, SETI + Einstein: lowest deadline is 14 days at either project (actually, slightly shorter at SETI) - don't cache more than 7 days, and make sure you choose the right value pair (0,7 for BOINC v6, 7,0 for BOINC v7). That will calm things down a lot, though I don't personally ever run more than a 2 day cache.

Seti@home was first and defined what a credit is. Others offer "more" to get you there. There has been many many threads on ALL the projects about this. http://boincstats.com/en/stats/-1/cpcs Shows the comparisons. If all you want is points, go to an arcade with a roll of quarters. If you want to help science, pick your project.

---

S@H units always run first, even with deadlines. My Seti units take the same amount of time. I have been doing this since S@H started, before 1999. I am sixty some years old and now retired. I think S@H has enough time to gather a base; just like others. Einstein does science, others do science. They have more to show for the effort. I think it is time for S@H to compete for time. I am cutting back. Do what you like. The question still stands, why does S@H not give more credits?

Why does SAH need to give out more WORTHLESS CREDITS? I'd be ecstatic if all the credit junkies moved to projects that gave out WORTHLESS credits. It might free up enough band width to make uploads/downloads a lot less painful.

I'd be ecstatic if all the credit junkies moved to projects that gave out WORTHLESS credits. It might free up enough band width to make uploads/downloads a lot less painful.

So would a Tylanol or two:)

http://boincstats.com/en/stats/-1/cpcs Shows the comparisons.

The comparison chart at http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/get_cpcs.php gives more detail and is better documented. It also says that SETI gives ten times more credit than Einstein, which I'm certain is false.

I think the comparison figures for both projects are distorted by the use of GPUs at both projects: the comparison charts are based on CPU time only. Overall, I think the administrators at both projects strive conscientiously to honour the original credit definition as closely as possible: anyone wishing to choose between them should run their own tests on their own hardware. Or, preferably, choose on the basis of the value of the science on their own personal scale.

http://boincstats.com/en/stats/-1/cpcs Shows the comparisons.

The comparison chart at http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/get_cpcs.php gives more detail and is better documented. It also says that SETI gives ten times more credit than Einstein, which I'm certain is false.

I think the comparison figures for both projects are distorted by the use of GPUs at both projects: the comparison charts are based on CPU time only. Overall, I think the administrators at both projects strive conscientiously to honour the original credit definition as closely as possible: anyone wishing to choose between them should run their own tests on their own hardware. Or, preferably, choose on the basis of the value of the science on their own personal scale.

Or choose on the basis of bandwidth, if I was crunching Einstein all the time it would be no problem, but as a backup the 90MB-ish download for a single task now and again put me off it as a backup. And it always seemed to happen when I was near my monthly limit :(

---

Member of the People Encouraging Niceness In Society club.

In the beginning S@H was all credits and racing. Boinc came along and S@H could not rule, so it got to be about science. Things got to be too much for them. They can not produce enough work units to compete. They have been limited by the school. Newer machines eat through units faster each year. Most people have to do other projects to keep machines on line t wait for S@H. After 14 years of doing S@H, yes I am going to include the pre-BOINC times, they have found nothing.

Seti people say big sky; small search. S@H has the computing power to search, they just can not get the interest in searching. Us old credit seakers should just go away? Maybe, but if we had our way S@H would have to find ways to get more data. S@H would have to find the way to get more bandwidth. S@H would have to learn to keep it machines running 24/7. S@H would have to learn to become just as good a machine as the machine it has gathered to process its data.

Has long as we do not push it, it will never get any better. And it may never find anything. Einstein has found things. Primes has found things. S@H is still small time looking; finding nothing. But what does and old S@H screen saver guy know?

---

By the way I have
Seti Total credits 25,099,142
Einstein Total credits 60,649,264
on top of
SETI@home classic workunits 34,125
SETI@home classic CPU time 153,553 hours

That is how much science I have done along the way to gathering WORTHLESS CREDITS.

---

Someone said Seti has a bigger pool of users. Is there an easy way to compare computing power between projects? Einstein has been posting about their computing power (as they measure it, boincstats shows it rather less).

A credit per flop or something would be nice so we can easily compare computing power at various projects. On the other hand, I'd like climate prediction to give out a few more credits for running their models which can take 3-4 weeks (cpu only).

By the way I have
Seti Total credits 25,099,142
Einstein Total credits 60,649,264
on top of
SETI@home classic workunits 34,125
SETI@home classic CPU time 153,553 hours

That is how much science I have done along the way to gathering WORTHLESS CREDITS.

You start with wanting more credits, and end pounding your chest bragging about the science and the worthless credits. Pick a side.

In the beginning when it was only Seti, the credits created Team races to spark enthusiasm. Credits only mean something comparing the same project. They are worthless in that you can't trade them in for something. If you want credits, your in the wrong project. If you want to find ET, stay here.

This was only supposed to be a two year or so project to begin with. The staff has graduated and kept it alive. There is no money, no resources and the spend all their time keeping it running. Imagine if they limited even half their work to projects like NITPIKR and others to further analyze the data. Wouldn't put it past them or even disagree with them if the put the crunching part on hold for a year or to to dig deeper in what they have. Those of us looking for ET would come back.

This ISN'T an arcade....

---

Yep, and anybody that thinks those credits have worth can buy mine for a buck a piece. I'll even donate half of the proceeds to Seti @ Home.

SUCH A DEAL!!!

When the autocorrelation comes on line the search becomes much larger.

---

They should just go to one credit for one work unit done and be done with it.I for one will still crunch Seti@Home as my main project, And do the others as backup.

---

[/quote]

Old James

What I find interesting is in looking at the two charts, the credit difference between Seti and SetiBeta. Same work units. Makes me think that the measuring stick is broken.

---