Lets be honest with ourselves. We are in it for the credit (I know I am.) My CPU are not particularly fast (none over or underclocked). I suppose it makes up for all the other projects where my computers only get a fraction of the credit to what they have claimed. I am sure that if the credit system changes to drastically, you will see many users stop crunching.

I think that this is unfortunate. Credit is fleeting, but scientific accomplishment is forever.

So long as everybody keeps crunching, though, we'll keep the credits flowing.

---

Scott Kruger
Project Administrator, Cosmology@Home

Lets be honest with ourselves. We are in it for the credit (I know I am.) My CPU are not particularly fast (none over or underclocked). I suppose it makes up for all the other projects where my computers only get a fraction of the credit to what they have claimed. I am sure that if the credit system changes to drastically, you will see many users stop crunching.

I think that this is unfortunate. Credit is fleeting, but scientific accomplishment is forever.

So long as everybody keeps crunching, though, we'll keep the credits flowing.

I disagree with mscharmack on both points. Most of us are in it because we want to contribute to the science. You might see a few protesters quit Cosmology if you decrease the credits but you'll recoup that loss quickly. Over the long run you'll see the user base and contributed CPU cycles increase continually as long as the credit payout isn't significantly lower than the average.

Get the project stable (referring to the problems with HR and pending credits) and get it on this list and you'll see the user base grow every day.

I disagree with mscharmack on both points. Most of us are in it because we want to contribute to the science. You might see a few protesters quit Cosmology if you decrease the credits but you'll recoup that loss quickly. Over the long run you'll see the user base and contributed CPU cycles increase continually as long as the credit payout isn't significantly lower than the average.

Get the project stable (referring to the problems with HR and pending credits) and get it on this list and you'll see the user base grow every day.

You must be new to DC if you think most users are in it for the science, and not the credit.

I'll restate my standard challenge: Try to start a new BOINC (or any DC project) with NO credit awarded, and see how many users you can get.

---

I do it because it interests me and I have fun doing it. Credits are fine. I'm not overly concerned with them. Maybe, without credits, a project might have less people involved but they may be more dedicated to the goal of the project. I appreciate the level of communication between the project and the crunchers. So as long as there is the communication, the amount of credits doesn't concern me (that much) but I do like to see some kind of tallying my work. (I didn't say that I didn't care about credit).

---

Credits for what? I've just tried to trawl through this site to remind me what this project is all about, and yet again this is another project where this basic info is hidden or not easily found.

It's OK, I went to the Team England forum to read what I put there about this project.

Hey, if no one tells you, how are you going to know?

---

@angus
I'm sure ppl who joined the project on the first month (ATAs and some fortunate guys as myself) didn't do it for credit, m8 - at that time credit was indeed *lower* than boinc average (even half on some platforms) :roll:

I believe this project is interesting enough to be crunched for science also... and think about what Scott just said - the credit you earned here (or anywhere else) won't last forever, but the results our computers achieve will serve to cosmology science, maybe proving some theories, maybe creating new unansered questions

Think about this... if ppl want credit, they buy some Quad-core, some PS3 (or borrow them to friends) and in a couple of months they stand on top-5000 - and then... what? they keep on crunching just for staying there, *bored* as they are not attracted by the science they're doing, looking their position everyday on charts...? and in two years? in five?

Nah, credits are fun, also... but if ppl are not attracted for anything more than simple positions in a chart, I bet they will soon bored and through all this stuff away

---

La Tierra de un Dios que no supo aceptar / su falso derecho a la libertad - Tierra Santa
Descárgate mi primer eBook Amaneceres

[quote]
I disagree with mscharmack on both points. Most of us are in it because we want to contribute to the science. You might see a few protesters quit Cosmology if you decrease the credits but you'll recoup that loss quickly. Over the long run you'll see the user base and contributed CPU cycles increase continually as long as the credit payout isn't significantly lower than the average.

Get the project stable (referring to the problems with HR and pending credits) and get it on this list and you'll see the user base grow every day.

You must be new to DC if you think most users are in it for the science, and not the credit.

Lolol, I think it's the other way around, son, but thanks for your opinion and specious argument anyway.

I'll restate my standard challenge: Try to start a new BOINC (or any DC project) with NO credit awarded, and see how many users you can get.

You obviously wouldn't crunch such a project, caught up in false notions of value as you are, but if it were a novel and worthwhile project (i.e. not just another protein folding project but something new, different and important to the future of humanity) I believe it would attract many thousands. There really are charitable people in the world who give and expect nothing in return.

You must be new to DC if you think most users are in it for the science, and not the credit.

Here is a link to a poll that was done a while back by Boincstats with the question being "Why do you participate in Boinc?"

---

You must be new to DC if you think most users are in it for the science, and not the credit.

Here is a link to a poll that was done a while back by Boincstats with the question being "Why do you participate in Boinc?"

Where's the link?

---

You must be new to DC if you think most users are in it for the science, and not the credit.

Personally I am in it for both! The science attracts me to a particular project, and the credits keep me motivated after the initial new-ness wears off. My resource share is set largely by science but also partly by credits. I would venture to guess that there is a whole spectrum of users who stay with DC for both reasons, and the only thing that differs is the percentage weight given to credits vs science.

gravitysmith

You must be new to DC if you think most users are in it for the science, and not the credit.

Here is a link to a poll that was done a while back by Boincstats with the question being "Why do you participate in Boinc?"

It's interesting that teams are not mentioned. Where I crunch and the credits I am looking for is hugely determined by what I am trying to achieve with my team, and what others are doing in terms of securing credit for the team I'm in. For example, I only started crunching here because a team mate did. I'll probably stop, crunching elsewhere, if my team mates stop.

---

Where's the link?

@Angus: The link is in the fourth word ("link"). Just click on that ;)


At the risk of letting this thread spin further off-topic, I think it might be worth reconsidering the use and purpose of combined Boinc statistics. I know there are many people who absolutely no longer see any value in these, given the excesses that have taken place in a few projects. Dropping combined statistics would give every project the freedom to do what they want. Individual and team competition can still play within the project itself. But of course this forum is not the right place to decide that.

Where's the link?

@Angus: The link is in the fourth word ("link"). Just click on that ;)

Arrgh. Another annoyance with this new web format - the links don't have enough contrast. It looked just like the words around it, and that's on a large LCD monitor.

At the risk of letting this thread spin further off-topic, I think it might be worth reconsidering the use and purpose of combined Boinc statistics. I know there are many people who absolutely no longer see any value in these, given the excesses that have taken place in a few projects. Dropping combined statistics would give every project the freedom to do what they want. Individual and team competition can still play within the project itself. But of course this forum is not the right place to decide that.

I agree! Cross-project stats parity in BOINC is unattainable, and projects should stop wasting time and effort chasing it.

---

I agree! Cross-project stats parity in BOINC is unattainable, and projects should stop wasting time and effort chasing it.

Whow..
If we're not yet able to fully reach a goal - let's dump the whole thing!


You can't stop people from competing with each other, it's human nature!
Giving out credits and beeing able to compare with others is a main part of the whole BOINC thing. How many will still do the crunching if no credits are granted? 40%? 50%?
If every project has it's own credit system, many will go to the project paying the most credits - that can't be good for science.

---

mic.

This thread is getting way off topic.The issue of Boinc credit system is not the topic or an appropriate conversation for this forum so lets please stay on topic.Thanks

I agree! Cross-project stats parity in BOINC is unattainable, and projects should stop wasting time and effort chasing it.

Whow..
If we're not yet able to fully reach a goal - let's dump the whole thing!


You can't stop people from competing with each other, it's human nature!
Giving out credits and beeing able to compare with others is a main part of the whole BOINC thing. How many will still do the crunching if no credits are granted? 40%? 50%?
If every project has it's own credit system, many will go to the project paying the most credits - that can't be good for science.

According to the other pundits here, people crunch because of the science, not the credits.

You can't have it both ways.

Competition is good, and drives participation. However, before BOINC, we all had great fun competing WITHIN projects, and not across every conceivable DC project. It's utter nonsense to try to do so with such disparate projects and apps.

---

Locked thread because the last 25 posts have nothing to do with the topic and I am starting to see temperatures rise.

---