Makes me think, credit sure is a means of crowd control for any BOINC project...

[soapbox]

The stuff I was going to post the other day, the \"another thought that I\'ll share later\", well, here it is...

As I mentioned the other day, I think the BOINC-wide statistics are pretty much useless to use as comparison now because of the differing ways credit is given out per project and the differing amounts per project. You also have problems with the benchmarks and Linux which distort the whole system anyway...

So, in my opinion, when I see someone come along and start griping about credits being \"too high\" / \"outrageous\" / whatever, I think the main motivating factor is not really making sure that projects aren\'t competing for participants, but it is actually more about that individual\'s long-term BOINC-wide standing.

Example:

I was a SETI-only person for quite some time. I had gotten up to position 7893 in the world BOINC-wide back in August of 2007. Around that time, the \"big payout\" projects (RS, QMC) started picking up serious steam as far as the credit output, as mainly the \"credithounds\" you mentioned realized this and those people moved over. This would mean that someone who had even a relatively older system with no chance of keeping pace with a newer system, had a new significant advantage in moving up the BOINC-wide credit ladder.



This is the link for that image

That is my AMD system. The upward trend from Feb 2007 to July 2007 was because I was putting effort into Einstein and not SETI. However, notice how steep the rate I was losing ground became. Yes, some of it is because of new processors, but the high payout in projects that I was not attached to had to be the major impact there. I haven\'t had my AMD working as hard as my Intel on Cosmology, but you can see that when I did in April and May of this year the slope got smaller.

So, in this discussion on \"fair credit across the board\", I think it\'s a wonderful concept, but it wasn\'t built-in from the beginning, and the people that are really clamoring the loudest about it right now are those who have been around for quite some time and are *REALLY* interested in their BOINC-wide standings, despite saying they want projects to be selected on their scientific merit.

Really, there are only a small subset of users who specifically \"chase credit\", so from a project perspective, and in fact BOINC-wide, those users are in the minority.

I wish people would be honest with all of the rest of us when they start getting all bent out of shape complaining about \"excessive\" credits...and what ALL of the motives behind their complaints are....

[/soapbox]

[application of flame-retardant]

---

Really, there are only a small subset of users who specifically \"chase credit\", so from a project perspective, and in fact BOINC-wide, those users are in the minority.

You may or may not be right, but I suspect it\'s a lot more than anybody cares to acknowledge. You don\'t see it so much in the project Forums but if you go to some of the Teams Websites you see a lot of talk about how much credit each project gives and how can I get more credit.

Even if it is a small minority as you say don\'t ever underestimate the Processing Power they can put out & the drop in Production at a Project when they decide it\'s time to Pack up their Box\'s & move on to Greener Pastures.

Also another thing to consider is when somebody with a good size Pharm leaves a Project then many times the rest of the Team over a short period of time will leave the Project too because they don\'t have their Pillar of support anymore at the project.

I know that for a fact from being on different Teams, when I started crunching for a Project other Team members would join in with me & when I stopped crunching for a Project most of the other Team Members would quit too ...

Really, there are only a small subset of users who specifically \"chase credit\", so from a project perspective, and in fact BOINC-wide, those users are in the minority.

You may or may not be right, but I suspect it\'s a lot more than anybody cares to acknowledge. You don\'t see it so much in the project Forums but if you go to some of the Teams Websites you see a lot of talk about how much credit each project gives and how can I get more credit.

Those are quite natural discussions to have in team-based forums. It\'s not that different from expecting a higher number of calls that are complaints and/or irate customers if working in a customer service call center...

Anyway, the vast majority of the BOINC populace are not members of teams. According to BOINCstats right now, 70.1% of users are not in teams. They\'ve got an additional stat that says that 60% of the teams are inactive at the moment. So, that stat says that 40% of 29.9% are active, or about 12% of the total user base are in teams and are active. Even if I were to be very generous and say that 75% of team members are \"credit chasers\", that drops the figure down to 9% of the total active user base. A more reasonable figure for what I think is reality: 10-20% of total active team members are chasing credit, which makes it only about 1.2-2.4% of the total active user base.

\"Credit chaser\" is defined as someone who specifically looks at credit per cpu second and researches which project grants the most and dedicates lots of resources to that project...and someone who complains LOUDLY when credits are reduced.

Even if it is a small minority as you say don\'t ever underestimate the Processing Power they can put out & the drop in Production at a Project when they decide it\'s time to Pack up their Box\'s & move on to Greener Pastures.

I know, and this is a \"power struggle\" that has played itself out many, many, many times. However, that too appears to be not so significant. Looking at the latest project that seemed to \"bend to the will of David Anderson\", QMC, you can see pretty much similar slope to the graphs over the past 18-24 months. Sure, thre are deviations, but no sustained large drops in output.

Anyway, what you\'re talking about are reasons to keep the credit amounts high. I was specifically speaking to the notion of BOINC-altruism coming from the people demanding lower credits so that \"people will choose the projects based on the scientific merit rather than the credit\".

To sum up, people who are already into it for the credit and the credit only are so competitive that they will still do their research to find the best granting projects over time... So long as the benchmark system that is known to be flawed is in use, there is no point in even having this discussion, from either side of the issue. No \"I want more credits or I\'m going to leave\" discussions...and no \"you are a greedy Project Admin because you give out ridiculous credits to lure people to participate in your project because, quite frankly, if all things were equal, your project sucks!\"

Brian - tired of the nonsense...

---

Going from a high paying project to paying less per hour than seti standard app is pretty profound..

Just got some credit for 2.14 - 70 credit for a 9 hour monster!

Hahahahaha! Very funny guys. No stop, really, it\'s just *too* funny! Not often that I see a project granting so little - Keep it up, you\'ll soon be down (and out) with Gerasim :)

Best go and top up my credit at a high-payer like Seti ;)

Never mind, It\'s All About The Science Hehe ...

Al.

The good news is, there won\'t be any more server problems... What with the whole no longer having any participants thing and all. ;)

---

Hours of processing and only 70 credits?!?!?!

Someone please tell me I\'m having a bad dream!

Project suspended for now. :-(

Hours of processing and only 70 credits?!?!?!

Someone please tell me I\'m having a bad dream!

Project suspended for now. :-(

LOL ... Wake up your only Dreaming ... NOT

Anyway, what you\'re talking about are reasons to keep the credit amounts high. people will choose the projects based on the scientific merit rather than the credit\".

Actually it doesn\'t really matter to me what the Credit is at a project & I usually don\'t say much about it one way or the other, I just try to go with the flow & if I don\'t like it I leave rather than make a big fuss over it.

Also If people choose their Project because of the Scientific Merit a Project has we could just about eliminate all of the projects as having no Merit at all. Because in the 5+ Years the Boinc Projects have been going not 1 single Cure has been found for any Disease & not one single thing has been discovered in outer space to change any scientists mind about anything out there.

So what it all boils down to for the last 5+ Years is that a whole lot of People have burned up a whole lot of Electricity & argued about the Credits ... LOL ... What a Hobby ... hehe

Because in the 5+ Years the Boinc Projects have been going not 1 single Cure has been found for any Disease & not one single thing has been discovered in outer space to change any scientists mind about anything out there.

Lots of new primes have been found, some new undiscovered moves in chess, LHC knows for 99.99999999863% sure their concoction doesn\'t produce black holes that swallow the Earth.

At least these forums are keeping you busy. What would you do if they weren\'t here? :-)

---

...At least these forums are keeping you busy. What would you do if they weren\'t here? :-)

A Boinc forum is like a clothes washing machine, it just keeps agitating whatever is put into it.

Because in the 5+ Years the Boinc Projects have been going not 1 single Cure has been found for any Disease & not one single thing has been discovered in outer space to change any scientists mind about anything out there.

Lots of new primes have been found, some new undiscovered moves in chess, LHC knows for 99.99999999863% sure their concoction doesn\'t produce black holes that swallow the Earth.

And that improves the Living Conditions or Feeds how many people now again ... ???

At least these forums are keeping you busy. What would you do if they weren\'t here? :-)

LOL ... Well to start out with I could have saved probably over $30,000 & that\'s not even counting the savings in the Electrical Bill ... :) ... Also my wife wouldn\'t be trying to have me Committed ... hahahaha

I know, in the past, that people have said this project gives too much credit, but to change it so that it gives even less than WCG does not seem to be the way to resolve credit issues.

I know, in the past, that people have said this project gives too much credit, but to change it so that it gives even less than WCG does not seem to be the way to resolve credit issues.

That is precisely why I proposed to reward 170 credits in total, which is lower than before but still generally in the current \'middle 80%\' range for any system/OS/person.

---

I know, in the past, that people have said this project gives too much credit, but to change it so that it gives even less than WCG does not seem to be the way to resolve credit issues.

That is precisely why I proposed to reward 170 credits in total, which is lower than before but still generally in the current \'middle 80%\' range for any system/OS/person.

We agree and will vote with our virtual feet. Sadly, the communication on this project has also slipped badly.....

I know, in the past, that people have said this project gives too much credit, but to change it so that it gives even less than WCG does not seem to be the way to resolve credit issues.

That is precisely why I proposed to reward 170 credits in total, which is lower than before but still generally in the current \'middle 80%\' range for any system/OS/person.

It still gives a lot more than WCG on my system, WCG gives usually below claim, Cosmo is still well above claim. I think it\'s now still in the upper 20% of the projects, but in an very acceptable area.

---

Grüße vom Sänger

I know, in the past, that people have said this project gives too much credit, but to change it so that it gives even less than WCG does not seem to be the way to resolve credit issues.

That is precisely why I proposed to reward 170 credits in total, which is lower than before but still generally in the current \'middle 80%\' range for any system/OS/person.

It still gives a lot more than WCG on my system, WCG gives usually below claim

Isn\'t that an issue with WCG? Why do you demand it to be something that this or any other project has to \"resolve\" by lowering credits to match an apparent defect in another project?

Cosmo is still well above claim. I think it\'s now still in the upper 20% of the projects, but in an very acceptable area.

Your computer is running Linux. The whole benchmark / claim process is known to be lower with Linux.

Why don\'t we be honest and admit that the fact that other people who have been around for less time that have been able to overtake you in the stats is at least some sort of motivation for your constant crusade against what is viewed as \"high credits\" from your Linux-oriented environment?

---

I know, in the past, that people have said this project gives too much credit, but to change it so that it gives even less than WCG does not seem to be the way to resolve credit issues.

That is precisely why I proposed to reward 170 credits in total, which is lower than before but still generally in the current \'middle 80%\' range for any system/OS/person.

It still gives a lot more than WCG on my system, WCG gives usually below claim

Isn\'t that an issue with WCG? Why do you demand it to be something that this or any other project has to \"resolve\" by lowering credits to match an apparent defect in another project?

I don\'t and I didn\'t. WCG is not so far off that I would ask for more credits, and it\'s a lie that Cosmo grants less than WCG.

Cosmo is still well above claim. I think it\'s now still in the upper 20% of the projects, but in an very acceptable area.

Your computer is running Linux. The whole benchmark / claim process is known to be lower with Linux.

Why don\'t we be honest and admit that the fact that other people who have been around for less time that have been able to overtake you in the stats is at least some sort of motivation for your constant crusade against what is viewed as \"high credits\" from your Linux-oriented environment?

I just answered the wrongful claim that 170 will be in the \'middle 80%\' range for any system/OS/person. 170 will be more then double of average for my system.

---

Grüße vom Sänger

You may as well forget about him Brian, it\'ll only be a matter of time before Saenger\'s back in here again claiming the Credits are too high here & need to be lowered again because the Project gives him 1 more credit Per Hour than Project X does.

Flame (bait) worthy material, people. Please keep it civil.

---

E2200
Measured floating point speed = 2848.9 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed = 6351.46 million ops/sec
Win XP SP3

Cosmology@Home (CAMB 2.13)
CPU time = (avg. of 10 WUs) 2 589 s
claimed credit = (avg. of 15 WUs) 13,68 ..... 19 cr/h
granted credit = (avg. of 15 WUs) 50 (fixed) ...... 64,44 cr/h

Cosmology@Home (CAMB 2.14)
CPU time = (avg. of 5 WUs) 14 400 s
claimed credit = (avg. of 5 WUs) 80 ..... 20 cr/h
granted credit = (avg. of 5 WUs) 70 (fixed) ...... 17,5 cr/h


My favourite WCG projects granted in the long run 18-20 cr/h -> Cosmo now stopped (2 and 4 cores PC)

---