Message boards :
Number crunching :
Top 100 - Why so low?
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
BigWaveSurfer Send message Joined: 29 Nov 01 Posts: 186 Credit: 36,311,381 RAC: 141 |
I clicked on the top 100 participants on the BOINC page and was somewhat surprised to see only a few running Seti. Are we, the users here, really that small of a batch? Collatz Conjecture had a significant share of most of the top 100 users allotment. Is there a historical graphic that shows the active users for Seti for the last 5 or 10 years? |
rob smith Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22199 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 |
Many projects "pay" far more per task (or per hour) than SETI. In terms of number of users SETI is still one of the largest projects using BOINC. Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
Cruncher-American Send message Joined: 25 Mar 02 Posts: 1513 Credit: 370,893,186 RAC: 340 |
I can speak from personal experience a few years ago when I ran Collatz for a while. It gave WAY more credits on a daily basis than SETI does. That completely biases the Top 100 you were looking at. The problem is that there is no metric for cross-project evaluation of work done. So no way of comparing credits given between projects. Also, there are users who work multiple projects at the same time, and that is a whole other can of worms. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19059 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
The credits awarded on Seti main and Setri Beta don't even match. If I set my computer to equal time for Main, Beta and Einstein, the RAC's are, approx, 2500, 4000, 100,000. |
BigWaveSurfer Send message Joined: 29 Nov 01 Posts: 186 Credit: 36,311,381 RAC: 141 |
Many projects "pay" far more per task (or per hour) than SETI. Interesting, good to know! Thanks! |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13736 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
The problem is that there is no metric for cross-project evaluation of work done. Actually, the problem is that no one uses the metric for cross project evaluation- and that is the Cobblestone. If everyone (particularly Seti- yes this project) actually awarded Credit for work done according to the Cobblestone definition, then cross project comparisons would be possible, and valid. And a very nice by-product of that would be Seti paying out a whole lot more for each WU processed than is presently the case. Grant Darwin NT |
rob smith Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22199 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 |
...but only if they remain constant in terms of number given for a fixed parameter and not waggle around like [insert phrase]... Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
Raistmer Send message Joined: 16 Jun 01 Posts: 6325 Credit: 106,370,077 RAC: 121 |
LoL, just as with elections. Important not how vote, but how count ;) Credit-based metric is screwed. Even between AP and MB types of SETI work, not saying about inter-project comparison. Even on earlier days when CreditScrew wasn't even in project my AMD GPU got more than order of magnitude more from MilkyWay than from SETI, credit-wise. So, select top-100 and count share of that for SETI is about the same as count one from each state no matter how big state is. ;D SETI apps news We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them. |
©2024 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.