1) Message boards : Number crunching : THIS REALLY SUCKS! (Message 43449) Posted 6 Nov 2004 by hamcons Post: OK, you want to know the real reason I've left seti? Its because of the intolerant attitudes by people responding to people like me who have legitimate complaints. I am not a "wonton complainer" as has been suggested. I have put in a grand total of 10 posts since I've been here. Every one has been well thought out and worded and polite, although reflective of my growing frustration. In almost every case, when I and others have expressed themselves about this subject, the credit system, the science cheerleaders have marginalized that person by saying: 1. You not in this for the science, but the credit, as though that is less pure than their intent. 2. That the system was designed to preclude cheaters. As though someone like me could figure out or care how to cheat. 3. Implied that the complainer was not smart enough to understand why it was the perfect credit system. (Sorry, I'm probably exagerrating to make the point) My complaints have been registered in a hope of bringing together a consensus to get the attention of seti-admin to change this monstrosity of a credit system. It became clear, with the attitudes of what seemed like the majority, or at least the loudest, that that was not to happen. Once it became obvious that it would not change, I decided to leave. Last night I laughed out loud while reading this thread, especially with the suggestion that someone go to 7-11 to get an Old Milwaukee before they close, and then the suggestion that that comment insulted beer. So I let it all hang out and expressed myself, the way I really felt. And to some extent to get the angry and intolerant responses that I predicted I would get to my post. You guys came through like you always have, as though something I said insulted you personally. How strange is that? By your attacks on my rant, you have perfectly made the point I was trying to make to begin with. I will be happy to be rated under most any system out there, as long as it is not so complicated so as to become inexplicable. I'm not someone who has the time or the inclination to study up on this they way Paul has, I have other things to do. I don't know what a cobblestone is, nor do I care to find out. The system on its face it too complicated that all meaning in it is lost, and the suspicion is that it is unfair. With the exception of Paul, who is a real gentlman, and Ciastro above, you've given me the impetus I needed to overcome the real desire I had to stay here, because I have really been jazzed by this project from the beginning, and have participated, albeit silently for many years. But this is a real problem, and if those of you who responded at least as beligerently as I did in my rant, don't listen, you'll find many, many more of us leaving the fold. Although they'll probably do it silently instead of bitching about it like I did.

2) Message boards : Number crunching : THIS REALLY SUCKS! (Message 43244) Posted 5 Nov 2004 by hamcons Post: Well guys, you responded about the way I expected. And Paul Buck, I appreciate your even handedness and rational response to my rant. I'm feeling better now, thank you very much. And yes, I have taken the seti software off my systems, which I will not be putting on again. I'm guessing that as seti-classic winds down, that seti-admin will find that many users will defect as I have decided to do, for many of the same reasons. I think that if set-at-home wishes to retain their volunteer base, that these issues need to be addressed. Or maybe they just want folks of purer intent to processing WU's. In either case...it has been fun. Hope you find ET.

3) Message boards : Number crunching : THIS REALLY SUCKS! (Message 43089) Posted 5 Nov 2004 by hamcons Post: I first came one seti-at-home over 4 years ago, 'cause I liked the cool looking screensaver. Then I felt some sense of pride to know that I was contributing to some etherial worthy goal of finding ET. Then I saw my credits growing, and I thought, hey this is cool! Then someone told me it would run faster if I turned the screen saver off. I did, and sho-nuff it ran faster. More credits! I began to get greedy, putting more machines on, crunching more, getting more time and more WU's. What heady times they were. Then I switchred to BOINC. I found out first that credit is granted from what someone else's machine did. I found out that I didn't get any credit until 3 WU's were returned. I found out that if my machine burbed during an upload...no credit. I found out that after version updates to the seti client, that credit for work that hadn't been granted under the previous version would never be granted. I found out that not only did I need to have a quorum of results, but that even when I did nothing to my machine, that my client software was cheating during the processing of a workunit, and that if it did, I would get no credit, even though I had no control over my client. Then I found out that even if I did everything that I was supposed to, that if my WU looked different from the other two in the quorum, that the other two would get credit and I would get none. It was INVALID, I was told. I started complaining. I even had an answer to one of my complaints on the QUESTION AND PROBLEMS board come back: "Mostly credit is not usefull for anything. It can still be compared to other peoples credit since they are laboring under the same problems as everyone else." I then found out that on these boards that the majority seem to be people who believe themselves to be superior to us stupid boobs who just want to contribute and see some result of their contribution that matches the time spent contributing. We're in this for the science they said, as though that's some kind of superior reason for being here. "You volunteered for this" they said..."shut up and keep crunching"..."its the science" afterall. "The system was designed to keep cheaters from cheating." WHAT? How can you cheat? Overclocking? I've never done that, nor did I know it could be done, nor would I know how to do it if I tried. "Seti has no liability for screwing up your machine", and since they're scientists, you just need to trust that they know what's best for you. OK, heard it, been there, done that. I'm done. I think the credit system was designed by someone as part of their doctoral thesis. I think they wanted to see how bad they could bog down a machine with useless calculations, coming up with results that don't mean anything to anyone. Maybe that's why there's been so many glitches in this stupid system, its taking so much time calculating credits that it saps all the computer power from the main purpose of sending out and receiving work units. Give me the old Classic number of workunits and time spent crunching of seti-Classic. That's all I really care about anyway. And OK, I'll say it...YES I AM IN THIS FOR THE CREDIT. I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S PITUTE ABOUT THE SCIENCE. OK, now all of you pinheaded science cheerleaders out there, go jump! And I haven't even had my Old Milwaukee yet. I am on a permanent vacation from seti just for this reason. As of tonight, the seti software is de-installed from my computers and you guys have loads of fun. Bye.

4) Message boards : Number crunching : Validate State = Invalid (Message 42048) Posted 1 Nov 2004 by hamcons Post: OK, I've complained enough about the credit system. Regardless of other's opinions I find the credit system inherently unfair, but we've discussed in other threads that dead horse, ad nuseum. I've read all the threads about science v. credit, and my feeling is still, that a lot of work went into building this credit system...it must be important enough to have invested the resource into developing this incredibly complex credit system which most laymen can't understand, so credit must be important to someone. That said, this isn't a complaint, but a question for those more knowledgable than me as to why after three WU's are returned and completed successfully, will two of the three in the quarum be granted credit and the third one will be granted 0. I was the last to return on this WU, and my Validate State came up Invalid. What does that mean? And why were the two granted credit, but no third credit was awarded? Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks in advance.

5) Questions and Answers : Preferences : Credit Granting System Issues (Message 37682) Posted 17 Oct 2004 by hamcons Post: As a non-scientist, but interested party, I can find no rational connection between what my computers do and how much credit I have been granted. The formula is so complex that all meaning has been lost in the mishmash of calculations that go into it. I am not a cheater, but cannot in any reasonable way tell if I am being cheated. I would like to be able to audit my credits, but as a lay person without the technical knowledge to even understand how credits are granted, I am in a position where BOINC adminstration has in effect said, "We are scientists, trust us." My response is BS. I don't even understand what use the credits are to anyone. I do understand the general concepts of credit being granted on how my computers perform workunits in relation to system benchmarks. SO WHAT! In 90% of the cases, the credit granted to me is based on what someone else's computer has done. I'm not far from discontinuing my participation in SETI, and I have been a user for over four years, just because of this issue. I have three issues: 1. I have BOINC workunits going back to May and June of this year which are still showing PENDING status and the validator queue is now showing zero. 2. In many cases, I have been granted zero credit, when there are three results returned, and the other two results received credit. 3. Also there are many cases where the software has made an error, and I was granted no credit. You know, all I did was load BOINC's software on my system. Why should I be penalized, when your software made a mistake? I had nothing to do with it, and I have no way of fixing it. So here's my conclusions: 1. Of what use is the credit system to anyone? What does it really show? If my computers' performances are not really reflected in the total credit granted to me, then why have it at all? Does my credit granted show me anything of use TO ANYONE, and if not, why have it? 2. Basically all I'm interested in, is how many workunits have I processed and how do I compare with others. I have two computers running workunits so I'll never be top of the heap, and I have no desire to be there, but I do want some relevant and understandable way of tracking what I have done. If the scientists want to keep track of the all the other junk that the credit system generates, that would be fine with me, but it has no meaning to me...in fact being rated on the current system angers me more than anything else. 3. The appeal of setiathome, I believe, is that us lay people could participate in science without having to be scientists. If credit is to granted at all, it shouldn't be so complex so that all meaning is lost in the process.

6) Message boards : Number crunching : How I Would Fix the Credit System (Message 37663) Posted 17 Oct 2004 by hamcons Post: I am totally with you on this one. As a non-scientist, but interested party, I can find no rational connection between what my computers do and how much credit I have been granted. The formula is so complex that all meaning has been lost in the mishmash of calculations that go into it. I am not a cheater, but cannot in any reasonable way tell if I am being cheated. I would like to be able to audit my credits, but as a lay person without the technical knowledge to even understand how credits are granted, I am in a position where BOINC adminstration has in effect said, "We are scientists, trust us." My response is BS. I don't even understand what use the credits are to anyone. I do understand the general concepts of credit being granted on how my computers perform workunits in relation to system benchmarks. SO WHAT! In 90% of the cases, the credit granted to me is based on what someone else's computer has done. I'm not far from discontinuing my participation in SETI, and I have been a user for over four years, just because of this issue. I have three issues: 1. I have BOINC workunits going back to May and June of this year which are still showing PENDING status and the validator queue is no showing zero. 2. In many cases, I have been granted zero credit, when there are three results returned, and the other two results received credit. 3. Also there are many cases where the software has made an error, and I was granted no credit. You know, all I did was load BOINC's software on my system. Why should I be penalized, when their software made a mistake? I had nothing to do with it, and I have no way of fixing it. So here's my conclusions: 1. Of what use is the credit system to anyone? What does it really show? If my computers' performances are not really reflected in the total credit granted to me, then why have it at all? Does my credit granted show me anything of use TO ANYONE, and if not, why have it? 2. Basically all I'm interested in, is how many workunits have I processed and how do I compare with others. I have two computers running workunits so I'll never be top of the heap, and I have no desire to be there, but I do want some relevant and understandable way of tracking what I have done. If the scientists want to keep track of the all the other junk that the credit system generates, that would be fine with me, but it has no meaning to me...in fact being rated on the current system angers me more than anything else. 3. The appeal of setiathome, I believe, is that us lay people could participate in science without having to be scientists. If credit is to granted at all, it shouldn't be so complex so that all meaning is lost in the process.

7) Questions and Answers : Preferences : Credits (Message 2925) Posted 1 Jul 2004 by hamcons Post: > > My question is, how does the CPU time correspond to the credit claimed? > What > > is the formula for translated CPU time into credit claimed? > > > Sorry about that. The Claimed credit is based on a project defined ratio of > Floating and Integer operations and the benchmarks that your computer > generates, and the CPU time reported when finished crunching a WU. I believe > that it goes something like C* ((fraction floating point * Floating Benchmark) > + (Fraction Integer * Integer benchmark)) * CPU time. > <a> href="http://www.boinc.dk/index.php?page=user_statistics&userid=9915"> > > I know you've been having computer problems and all, but out of 45 or so results that I have reported, I have only received credit for 5. At this point, my computers are seti-idle. They have not downloaded new WU's in two days. When might this be fixed? Secondly, the net effect of this policy is to penalize those who have more efficient computers. I have two computers processing WU's, one of which is very efficient and one which isn't very efficient. In every case, my efficient computer's claimed credit is greater than the credit granted. To get credit based on someone else's less efficient processor does not seem to make sense. My efficient computer generates a high claimed credit, is usually the first to report a WU, and in every case the credit granted is less than that claimed. Yes I usually get more credit granted than claimed on the less efficient computer, but since the more efficient computer processes about 3 times more units than the other, I will never make up for the difference between claimed and granted. Why not give full credit to the first computer to report a WU, and then average the other two?

8) Questions and Answers : Preferences : Credits (Message 2787) Posted 30 Jun 2004 by hamcons Post: > > What is the formula for calculating credit earned? > Credit earned is the median of three results that are validated as the same. > If your result does not validate as the same as the other two, you get no > credit. If there is a processing error, you get no credit. > > How long does it take to get credit awarded? > Depends. It takes three matching results to award credit. Requesting credit > is a two step process. First the data for the result is uploaded. The result > is reported, and credit requested during communication with the scheduler that > happens at the earliest of: a manual update, a request for more work from > that project, or about 6 hours before the expiration of a result for that > project on that host. The timing of the results coming in will be affected by > the time that they were sent out, the speed of the computers doing the > crunching, the size of the queues, the number of other projects that the > computers are running. A result that is not received before the deadline for > that result will be marked as abandoned, and will generate another copy of the > WU sent to another client, thus starting another round of work. A WU may also > spend some time waiting to be sent to a host. > > > <a> href="http://www.boinc.dk/index.php?page=user_statistics&userid=9915"> > > My question is, how does the CPU time correspond to the credit claimed? What is the formula for translated CPU time into credit claimed?

9) Questions and Answers : Preferences : Credits (Message 2786) Posted 30 Jun 2004 by hamcons Post: > > What is the formula for calculating credit earned? > Credit earned is the median of three results that are validated as the same. > If your result does not validate as the same as the other two, you get no > credit. If there is a processing error, you get no credit. > > How long does it take to get credit awarded? > Depends. It takes three matching results to award credit. Requesting credit > is a two step process. First the data for the result is uploaded. The result > is reported, and credit requested during communication with the scheduler that > happens at the earliest of: a manual update, a request for more work from > that project, or about 6 hours before the expiration of a result for that > project on that host. The timing of the results coming in will be affected by > the time that they were sent out, the speed of the computers doing the > crunching, the size of the queues, the number of other projects that the > computers are running. A result that is not received before the deadline for > that result will be marked as abandoned, and will generate another copy of the > WU sent to another client, thus starting another round of work. A WU may also > spend some time waiting to be sent to a host. > > > <a> href="http://www.boinc.dk/index.php?page=user_statistics&userid=9915"> > >

10) Questions and Answers : Preferences : Credits (Message 2448) Posted 29 Jun 2004 by hamcons Post: What is the formula for calculating credit earned? How long does it take to get credit awarded?

 
©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.