:(
There goes all the fun!

lol

Folks the # now is 2.17 per result.
____________

i just hope that you don't based lowering credits on the stats of http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/get_cpcs.php cuz that data is flawed wich has already been proven to be fact.

However i agree that credit was to low ... errr.. hmmm ... ok a bit to high.
Was fun while it lasted :P

i just hope that you don't based lowering credits on the stats of http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/get_cpcs.php cuz that data is flawed wich has already been proven to be fact.

However i agree that credit was to low ... errr.. hmmm ... ok a bit to high.
Was fun while it lasted :P

EDIT

Had a look at it again and on a dual quad core xeon 5365 @3 GHz that would mean a max RAC of 4.7K/day... i think reducing credits by 3 was a bit to much for that.

i just hope that you don't based lowering credits on the stats of http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/get_cpcs.php cuz that data is flawed wich has already been proven to be fact.

However i agree that credit was to low ... errr.. hmmm ... ok a bit to high.
Was fun while it lasted :P

welp time to move again :(

i just hope that you don't based lowering credits on the stats of http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/get_cpcs.php cuz that data is flawed wich has already been proven to be fact.

However i agree that credit was to low ... errr.. hmmm ... ok a bit to high.
Was fun while it lasted :P

welp time to move again :(

Yep, I already moved. Project parity is a "David Anderson Dream" that takes all of the competitive fun out of crunching in some projects. That is like telling a store owner he has to set his prices the same as his competitor across the street. I still wonder why everyone thinks SETI has to be the standard. They cannot even keep their project running right most of the time.

I just got my first (and last) WU with the new and improved credit.

I enjoyed the short time I crunched here but I must bid my farewell. That type of payout is not acceptable.

Enjoy everyone until such time as it (if it is) corrected.

Happy Easter :)
____________
CLICK TO HELP BUILD

2.17 is a bit too low... it's just in the range of what the clients claim and these original benchmark based credits are much lower than the average.

A good value would be 3.8 or even 4, which would also keep the project attractive for (fast) modern 64bit machines.

2.17 is a bit too low... it's just in the range of what the clients claim and these original benchmark based credits are much lower than the average.

A good value would be 3.8 or even 4, which would also keep the project attractive for (fast) modern 64bit machines.

I just got my first (and last) WU with the new and improved credit.

I enjoyed the short time I crunched here but I must bid my farewell. That type of payout is not acceptable.

Enjoy everyone until such time as it (if it is) corrected.

I guess the real question is where do you want to be amongst all projects?

Isn't ABC and Cosmology currently the highest? Would hate to be in range of like LHC or Spinhenge( bout lowest). This now might be near dead-center but I think Set-optimized should be the standard...so what would that value be? 3-3.5?

Thanks for your input Dave ...it is much appreciated :)
____________

So 4.0 or even 4.2 would be a fair value for a WU.

I guess the real question is where do you want to be amongst all projects?

Isn't ABC and Cosmology currently the highest? Would hate to be in range of like LHC or Spinhenge( bout lowest). This now might be near dead-center but I think Set-optimized should be the standard...so what would that value be? 3-3.5?

Well I was hoping that I had found a home for a while but now that you have lowered the credits.. CYA

Back to ABC and RS...

I just got my first (and last) WU with the new and improved credit.

I enjoyed the short time I crunched here but I must bid my farewell. That type of payout is not acceptable.

Enjoy everyone until such time as it (if it is) corrected.

Help me out here, I'm confused. Do you get money for this? I know it's nice to see the numbers go up, but to only crunch for a project because it's giving out a godly amount of credit..? I'm not trying to start a flame war her, nor even a discussion of human psychology. But I just don't get what the big deal is.
Me, I contribute because I like what Milkyway@Home is trying to accomplish, and in my opinion if every computer in the world donated its free time towards projects like this, we'd be answering important questions all over the place.. and that's what it should be about. Admittedly seeing your credits go up does make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but it should be for selfless, not selfish, reasons.
I'll leave the calculations to those who care (though I feel for the project maintainers who have to)

If the whole purpose is to level credits among projects i'd say we're a bit lower than Spinhenge now... btw, don't take seti optimized into account for that cuz seti is absolutely not suited for comparing credits(not even the optimized one) ... believe me i know what i'm talking about :)

If the whole purpose is to level credits among projects i'd say we're a bit lower than Spinhenge now... btw, don't take seti optimized into account for that cuz seti is absolutely not suited for comparing credits(not even the optimized one) ... believe me i know what i'm talking about :)

Yes buddy I am much aware of you from my Seti days but I am sure you were not aware of me ;)

Seti-opty because that seems to be the target amongst projects that care....so that "should be" middle of the road target....errr not saying you can't be higher ;)

See Emanuel what the deal is for me is there is what I deem 8-10 worthy projects I crunch for....I will tend to give higher resource share to those that pay better but not always so ...look at where I am at LHC....but because there are 50+ projects out there ,,,,the competition now plays a role...look at the stats sites running stats specifically targeting those projects and teams competing in them.

2.17 is a bit too low... it's just in the range of what the clients claim and these original benchmark based credits are much lower than the average.

A good value would be 3.8 or even 4, which would also keep the project attractive for (fast) modern 64bit machines.

even 4 is a bit off here's i how to calculated (take into account that times per wu is from an highly optimized windows 64 bit app that i've been testing)

86400(sec/day) / 300 (sec/wu) * 8 (dual quad core xeon 5365@3 ghz=8 cpus) *2.17 credits ~ 4999 credits a day ...

usually on abc@home running 64 bit apps i get a rac of 11.6K /day...

So 4.0 or even 4.2 would be a fair value for a WU.

Anyone wanna comment on my calculation ?

Won't all of this go out the window when the wu's are lengthened?

Good time for the mini athlon@poem until the credits are raised to a good (reason to run the project) level.
Will be back in a week i hope ;)
____________

I just got my first (and last) WU with the new and improved credit.

I enjoyed the short time I crunched here but I must bid my farewell. That type of payout is not acceptable.

Enjoy everyone until such time as it (if it is) corrected.

Help me out here, I'm confused. Do you get money for this? I know it's nice to see the numbers go up, but to only crunch for a project because it's giving out a godly amount of credit..? I'm not trying to start a flame war her, nor even a discussion of human psychology. But I just don't get what the big deal is.
Me, I contribute because I like what Milkyway@Home is trying to accomplish, and in my opinion if every computer in the world donated its free time towards projects like this, we'd be answering important questions all over the place.. and that's what it should be about. Admittedly seeing your credits go up does make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but it should be for selfless, not selfish, reasons.
I'll leave the calculations to those who care (though I feel for the project maintainers who have to)

Seti is different because they go the 3rd party route ...probably deviously so.....they still have a standard app that people are getting a low credit for....why the optimizations can't just happen server side so all get the benefit based on their platform is beyond me ...hence devious....all users (like here) should share in the wealth so to speak.

Here everyone gets the benefit of the opty so the only base you still have is all opty...get my point?
____________

one other thing,, alot of the biotchin is becasue alot of us belong to TEAMS

which inturn EVERY CREDIT COUNTS. no we dont crunch all the TOP GRANTING PROJECTS but we do like to have a few to keep that daily production up...

my team SETI.USA is going to break the 1 Billion mark here hopefully by

mid April , YES I SAID 1 BILLION COMBINED CREDITS !!! now that isnt all

high granting credit projects, if you look we are involved with just about

every single project out there. for alot of us its a Compitition, Braging

rights... we dont get paid for doing this, we do it becasue we enjoy it,

we enjoy the Compitiion... ( excuse my spelling 1 to many brewski's lol and i dont care )

but anyway yes the credits do mean alot to some of us that compete in almost

all the projects out there. i hope that explains alot of it.
____________

Yes, but that still doesn't work out cuz seti credit granting is broken as hell... you only have to take into account those wus having 'worth' 54 credits... those take 33% more time to process and therefore grant 33% less credits... that' a known fact over at seti but yet they won't fix it for whatever reasons so comparing MW to seti is a no go...

Not many complained about getting shorted credit before the optimizations. So why gripe now when the credit is rougly the same as it was then. The wu's were cut down to 1/3 and the credit 1/3(approx.).
____________
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

btw Crunch3r the site you quoted with the project credit comparasin chart which has been used as a hammer on many projects is so full of holes is smells like moldy swiss cheese ;D

I might also say that not only is Milkyways science exemplary the communication between the admin and usership is so good it at this point ...it should be used as a shining example to all Boinc Projects :D I have been pounding Cosmology and Orbit as of late on this issue.
____________

Not many complained about getting shorted credit before the optimizations. So why gripe now when the credit is rougly the same as it was then. The wu's were cut down to 1/3 and the credit 1/3(approx.).

I agree that granted credit was too high before (although I enjoyed it) and is too low now. Some of my 64 bit Linux boxes are now getting less than claimed, while they get more than claimed on other projects with 64bit applications.

It will certainly put MilkyWay lower on my list of priorities as there are quite a few projects which will give more credit for the same amount of crunching, bigger caches and longer deadlines.

Sure, you can't buy anything with credits, but with so many projects to choose from, credits do mean something to people who are in it for the competition.

You don't need to be the highest "paying" project, but don't strive to be among the lowest.


____________
Join the #1 Aussie Alliance on MilkyWay!

I agree that granted credit was too high before (although I enjoyed it) and is too low now. Some of my 64 bit Linux boxes are now getting less than claimed, while they get more than claimed on other projects with 64bit applications.

It will certainly put MilkyWay lower on my list of priorities as there are quite a few projects which will give more credit for the same amount of crunching, bigger caches and longer deadlines.

Sure, you can't buy anything with credits, but with so many projects to choose from, credits do mean something to people who are in it for the competition.

You don't need to be the highest "paying" project, but don't strive to be among the lowest.

Well, what can I say. The credit here was good for a while. With the reduction in credits, I think I'll go back to ABC@home as the primary source of crunching and Milkyway will be put on the back burner. When the credit returns as being profitable again, then I shall return. Think of crunching as a bank.... "The more interest you give, the more money you will have invested, and the more customers you'll have." Wake me up when the credit does up again. I don't really care what the other projects give as credit. Maybe if you kept yours high, the other projects will have to rethink what they give to lure crunchers back. If you're going to grant your credit more inline with other projects why should I volunteer my computer time to your project????? Why settle for hamburger when you can have steak. The credit here is now hamburger instead of steak now. I am reducing or stopping the work an all my computers for this project.

Remember --- Hamburger (like all the others) or Steak (unique).

Before I take the last computer off of this project in 5 minutes, I would like to let you know why I am leaving..If you really care.

I have 67 machine with over 220 cores and that is my fleet. It runs me around 300.00 per month to run them. This is my hobby and up until a few hours ago, I was happy to be here. Then like a lot of the other projects you tried to make the rest of the world happy by what you call brining you credits in line.. Hey you guys run the project and if you want to keep the power user, do what you have to do to keep us. But do as you will, its you toy not mine.

So I will now leave and wish you the best on your project.

And for those of you who want the credits the same on all of the projects, All that I have to say to you is get a life, For most of you who complain about the credits have a hard time getting 1k per day rac...

the credits need to go back up to where they were! dont let DA push you guys around! be the rebels in the boinc community and make things more interresting! i hope your quick at raising the credits or in 2 days im out also.

I second that, Dr. Dan T. Morris @ SETI.USA.... All my computers just went to no new work. However, I will finish what is currently on them.

Dave and Travis, Don't lower your standards, let the other projects raise theirs.

Not many complained about getting shorted credit before the optimizations. So why gripe now when the credit is rougly the same as it was then. The wu's were cut down to 1/3 and the credit 1/3(approx.).

Before I take the last computer off of this project in 5 minutes, I would like to let you know why I am leaving..If you really care.

I have 67 machine with over 220 cores and that is my fleet. It runs me around 300.00 per month to run them. This is my hobby and up until a few hours ago, I was happy to be here. Then like a lot of the other projects you tried to make the rest of the world happy by what you call brining you credits in line.. Hey you guys run the project and if you want to keep the power user, do what you have to do to keep us. But do as you will, its you toy not mine.

So I will now leave and wish you the best on your project.

And for those of you who want the credits the same on all of the projects, All that I have to say to you is get a life, For most of you who complain about the credits have a hard time getting 1k per day rac...

I don't think the servers are gonna have any more problems after tonight! I'm out too :(



Fish

I'm on my last WU on my dual core athlon 5600 and ABC@home has resumed. My other machines are still counting down from 20 or less.

Personally I don't have a problem with what the granted credit has been set to. I'm staying, and so is my overclocked CPU.

Personally I don't have a problem with what the granted credit has been set to. I'm staying, and so is my overclocked CPU.

Personally I don't have a problem with what the granted credit has been set to. I'm staying, and so is my overclocked CPU.

Personally I don't have a problem with what the granted credit has been set to. I'm staying, and so is my overclocked CPU.

heh i had another machine in the works which i was building to bring in on this also :) a Q9450 which a buddy of mine is gone build for me... i hope you guys correct this crazy mistake before its finished i really wanted to break it in here :) if not ABC will work just as well i guess :) :)

now if they will only release the damn chip lol,,, it sucks to have the $$$$$ and have to wait lol.. passed up so many fantastic QUAD deals so far it hurts lol.

Personally I don't have a problem with what the granted credit has been set to. I'm staying, and so is my overclocked CPU.

You won't have problems getting WU's.

Personally I don't have a problem with what the granted credit has been set to. I'm staying, and so is my overclocked CPU.

heh i had another machine in the works which i was building to bring in on this also :) a Q9450 which a buddy of mine is gone build for me... i hope you guys correct this crazy mistake before its finished i really wanted to break it in here :) if not ABC will work just as well i guess :) :)

now if they will only release the damn chip lol,,, it sucks to have the $$$$$ and have to wait lol.. passed up so many fantastic QUAD deals so far it hurts lol.

Just curious Cappy, what do you think the $$$ will be to have it built, that will be a screamer.

Hi everyone :-)

I've only been here a couple of weeks, so please bear with me if I make a total idiot of myself. :-)

I think a neater way of doing this would have been to make the work units longer, which I know has been talked about.

If the work units were made three times longer, then that would sort out the high credit problem.

If a slight edge in giving credit was wanted for any reason, then my thought would be to make the work units 2.5 - 2.8 times bigger. If that were done, then the credit per unit would still be slightly high but not excessively so.

Another benefit of this, I think, would have been to lighten the server load somewhat as machines would be crunching for longer and so wouldn't contact the servers for work so often.

I assume if the work units are lengthened then the credit rate will be adjusted accordingly.

As it is, I'm intrigued by the science behind Milkyway, especially the idea of using one set of results to help generate another set. So, although I'd much rather have higher credits than lower ones, I'm going to stay here and crunch on.

I'm sorry for going on so much. As I said at the start, I don't have a long background in this - or any - Boinc project, so I don't know how practical what I've said is. But thanks for the chance to say it. :-)

I yelped a bit a couple of weeks ago when it was mooted that credits should be reduced. That is because I am running a PPC Mac and it didn't get any optimisation in the last round of app updates. However, I subsequently looked at the figures again and I concede that 6.5 per result was too high. Trouble is, 2.17 is way too low. Somewhere around 4 would be reasonable I would think.

I yelped a bit a couple of weeks ago when it was mooted that credits should be reduced. That is because I am running a PPC Mac and it didn't get any optimisation in the last round of app updates. However, I subsequently looked at the figures again and I concede that 6.5 per result was too high. Trouble is, 2.17 is way too low. Somewhere around 4 would be reasonable I would think.

Personally I don't have a problem with what the granted credit has been set to. I'm staying, and so is my overclocked CPU.

heh i had another machine in the works which i was building to bring in on this also :) a Q9450 which a buddy of mine is gone build for me... i hope you guys correct this crazy mistake before its finished i really wanted to break it in here :) if not ABC will work just as well i guess :) :)

now if they will only release the damn chip lol,,, it sucks to have the $$$$$ and have to wait lol.. passed up so many fantastic QUAD deals so far it hurts lol.

Just curious Cappy, what do you think the $$$ will be to have it built, that will be a screamer.

my cost about $750 for the pross, MB and DDR3 mem.. the rest my bud is gona toss in for nothing :) he wants to see what its gona do also :P :P

That's a great deal Cappy!!!

I yelped a bit a couple of weeks ago when it was mooted that credits should be reduced. That is because I am running a PPC Mac and it didn't get any optimisation in the last round of app updates. However, I subsequently looked at the figures again and I concede that 6.5 per result was too high. Trouble is, 2.17 is way too low. Somewhere around 4 would be reasonable I would think.

Here's my 2 cents worth.

I have been crunching this project since I first found it. I like it. I loved it when the apps were optimised and did the same amount of work in half the time and loved the credit boost that gave. But I am also the first to concede that the credit became too high and had to change. By my measurements, the performance boost with the optimisations was that they were done in about half the time they were before, so I would have thought it appropriate to halve the credit, not divide by 3.

On my testing now, on my slower PCs the credit for MW is now lower than Spinhenge and Proteins, which are my "benchmarks" for the lowest credit. On my faster machines, the credit is in the mid range of all projects or slightly on the lower side.

I will continue crunching this project as I consider it one of the worthy ones, but it will have to get a lower share if I am to maintain my desired daily credit output (yes, perhaps selfish, but I think you have to balance things - choose the projects you think worthy then allocate them time according to the rewards is my method).

So to summarise, I would have thought about 3.25 would have been the right level to aim for (ie half what it was).
____________
Proud member of BOINC@AUSTRALIA

Personally I don't have a problem with what the granted credit has been set to. I'm staying, and so is my overclocked CPU.

heh i had another machine in the works which i was building to bring in on this also :) a Q9450 which a buddy of mine is gone build for me... i hope you guys correct this crazy mistake before its finished i really wanted to break it in here :) if not ABC will work just as well i guess :) :)

now if they will only release the damn chip lol,,, it sucks to have the $$$$$ and have to wait lol.. passed up so many fantastic QUAD deals so far it hurts lol.

I yelped a bit a couple of weeks ago when it was mooted that credits should be reduced. That is because I am running a PPC Mac and it didn't get any optimisation in the last round of app updates. However, I subsequently looked at the figures again and I concede that 6.5 per result was too high. Trouble is, 2.17 is way too low. Somewhere around 4 would be reasonable I would think.

I think that 4.2 is a reasonable number.

Also note that this is still an Alpha/Beta project.

I also think that the next time a 'big' change occurs that Travis should stick around for a few hours to see how it goes.
____________
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

Now my 2 cents....a pattern is starting to evolve. Opto the app and do it to good then the credit crunch appears in time. We build and pay for the costs of our systems and are having to deal with this more and more. We don't have much of a say in either. A post is made and then its done...OK , good luck with the project as I'm bowing out also.

I think 6.5 credits/WU was perfectly reasonable. Think out of the box, don't crawl inside it. Go back to 6.5. I have 17 work units left split on three other machines, then its back to ABC@home 100%. What use is the science if you only have a handfull of people doing it. Look at the Near Earth Astroid (NEA) program. Boy are we doomed! Remember, we are your customers.

What is the point of coming out with an optimized app if the project is going to negate the effect? (Please, don't say 'do it for science') You're sending a message - 'Why optimize?'

Remember, we are your customers.

If the optimized app becomes the standard app and is issued to all platforms supported by the project, credit granted should IMO be based on using that (standard, optimized) app. Nothing unusual about that - it's been done elsewhere (like Einstein)

As the number one cruncher in this project (until a few hours ago) let ne say this. I chose to allocate ny resources to this project from the beginning because I liked it and not because how much credits I could get from it. Having said that I am disappointed in the tendency in not just this but other projects to lower the credit ratio or increase the time it takes to complete a WU. As volunteers we all have a choice as to which projects we are going to follow. Some of us chose a project because of its scientific value others because they like the chase, they like the challange or in deed try their best with whatever their resources are to improve their teams standing like safety in numbers. Since it costs us a considerable amount to run our stations the choice as to what projects we are going to run is determined by the points we get for our efforts. Let the market determine this number and not us. If MilkyWay is determined to give the lowest score than as it is already happening a lot of valued crunchers will go elswhere. I do not see the reason for change...
____________

I yelped a bit a couple of weeks ago when it was mooted that credits should be reduced. That is because I am running a PPC Mac and it didn't get any optimisation in the last round of app updates. However, I subsequently looked at the figures again and I concede that 6.5 per result was too high. Trouble is, 2.17 is way too low. Somewhere around 4 would be reasonable I would think.

I think that 4.2 is a reasonable number.

I yelped a bit a couple of weeks ago when it was mooted that credits should be reduced. That is because I am running a PPC Mac and it didn't get any optimisation in the last round of app updates. However, I subsequently looked at the figures again and I concede that 6.5 per result was too high. Trouble is, 2.17 is way too low. Somewhere around 4 would be reasonable I would think.

I think that 4.2 is a reasonable number.

I agree that 4.2 is reasonable and acceptable if the more likely alternative is the current 2.17. Admittingly, as most agree in all fairness, 6.5 was on the high side to be a stock ap. Interestingly, I run 32 bit XP on a T7200 laptop & MW was good for 100 credits per hour. Also run current Einstein "power users Ap" which grants 78.8 per hour. It's from the project, not 3rd party, so it's what "stock" is awarding.

I agree w/ Crunch3r and Philly that Seti is not a good reference & their methodology is flawed & broken. One has to have a strong motivation to crunch it, given the numerous deficiencies. It's in pretty sad shape actually and a shadow of its former self. But I digress.....

4.2 will drop credit to @ 65 per hour on my rig, a fair amount. Not the highest, not the lowest...but "acceptable". 2.17 means 33 per hour on this rig...not very motivating. That said, I crunch MW, Einstein etc. because I like the projects and they have awesome scientific relevance. To me, good credits are enough appreciation for time, electricity and the shortened lifespan of components running 100% load 24/7.

Also,there should be some consideration (for any project that is open-source or welcomes development from volunteers) that dedicated & capable volunteer programmers/optimizers are rather rare. The difference that they can make in productivity can be quite substantial and the potential financial impact to the project from time & hardware savings etc....HUGE. I'd think many projects would like to keep such an individual(s) on "their team" as a franchise player ; > ) & not encourage free-agency. For the extra work and time they dedicate, there's got to be some sort of incentive to improve the ap performance if personal interest is not the prime motivator.
A little higher credit base is a rather innexpensive, but effective reward for their improvements.

Just offering my opinion.

Gecko

Just for interest sake, I present the following info.
I keep all my project data in spreadsheets for the last several years.
These stats are made up of last 150 valid W/U's from each project per machine which are automatically analysed as follows per core:

I like your argument. I'm going to show it to Travis. He's the one who controls the credit and the main aspects of the project. I'd like to say though that I really don't care about credit. I'd set it to 1,000 per work unit if it'd keep the user base together. This is a great community of people and i'm going to try hard to keep it that way.

I guess the real question is where do you want to be amongst all projects?

Isn't ABC and Cosmology currently the highest? Would hate to be in range of like LHC or Spinhenge( bout lowest). This now might be near dead-center but I think Set-optimized should be the standard...so what would that value be? 3-3.5?

Thanks for your input Dave ...it is much appreciated :)

Personally I don't have a problem with what the granted credit has been set to. I'm staying, and so is my overclocked CPU.

I think that 4.2 is a reasonable number.

4.5 sounds good to me. I'll be sitting here waiting to hear the verdict. Soon I hope. :)
____________
Join Cruncher Junkies on MilkyWay!

Personally I don't have a problem with what the granted credit has been set to. I'm staying, and so is my overclocked CPU.

Just a question -

http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/show_user.php?userid=2095

What sort of overclocked CPU are you running.. a Pent III :)

Just jabbing at you...nothing personal. I am staying as well, with a couple of my non-overclocked machines, the overclocked ones I reserve for projects that pay enough to keep it, like this one.
http://abcathome.com/show_host_detail.php?hostid=37811

I guess the real question is where do you want to be amongst all projects?

Isn't ABC and Cosmology currently the highest? Would hate to be in range of like LHC or Spinhenge( bout lowest). This now might be near dead-center but I think Set-optimized should be the standard...so what would that value be? 3-3.5?

Thanks for your input Dave ...it is much appreciated :)

I suspect a credit of 3 would bring us back to where we were, when nobody was complaining.

So, suggestion. Why not arbitrarily reduce the credit by a half to 3.25 - Still a little high, but try it for a while.

4.5 sounds good to me. I'll be sitting here waiting to hear the verdict. Soon I hope. :)

Mr DA shows up and tells you, "You've done a wonderful job, but we must now negate the additional cobblestones you achieved so you are back in line with SETI"

Who were the 'most people' mentioned on the front page that thought a factor of 3 reduction was appropriate? From posts it seems that there was not even a consensus across the MW@Home team about the size of the reduction!

Yes, credits were a little high, yes it is science we are doing, but Stats, numbers and rankings are all also important to us individual users out here.

After Dr A's messing about in the wider Boinc commumity I have ceased to crunch Seti (that is if it is still working!) - so job done Dr A.

Dave & Travis - watch the results in progress continue to drop (down about 5% already this monring) as people vote silently with their feet.....not that we are likely to see a corresponding increase at Seti.

Who's project is it anyway? - clearly the MW@Home staff felt pressured into acting, users are demonstrably unhappy ............. any winners out there?

G'bye... :(

Who were the 'most people' mentioned on the front page that thought a factor of 3 reduction was appropriate? From posts it seems that there was not even a consensus across the MW@Home team about the size of the reduction!

Yes, credits were a little high, yes it is science we are doing, but Stats, numbers and rankings are all also important to us individual users out here.

After Dr A's messing about in the wider Boinc commumity I have ceased to crunch Seti (that is if it is still working!) - so job done Dr A.

Dave & Travis - watch the results in progress continue to drop (down about 5% already this monring) as people vote silently with their feet.....not that we are likely to see a corresponding increase at Seti.

Who's project is it anyway? - clearly the MW@Home staff felt pressured into acting, users are demonstrably unhappy ............. any winners out there?

It seems to me that the most people are making it themselves too easy.
The most are complaining and run away instead of making suggestions to make it better.

I'll stick with the 4 credits per WU like earlier mentioned in the thread of Crunch3r.
Seems suitable on all OS and machines and it's still on a level to ABC and Cosmo, when I calculate that on my machines.

Also I would suggest a thread with a poll. Listing some values and everyone should vote for the value which is suitable for him.
____________
Member of BOINC@Heidelberg and ATA!

My BOINCstats

yes i think a poll would be better to find out what the best credit would be.
But i say yes to putting the credits up to anything between 4 and 5 per wu

Also I would suggest a thread with a poll.

I still think this will only be a temp fix. When the wu's are made longer this will probably be more of a mess as times will be more spread out for everybody.
____________
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

See Emanuel what the deal is for me is there is what I deem 8-10 worthy projects I crunch for....I will tend to give higher resource share to those that pay better but not always so ...look at where I am at LHC....but because there are 50+ projects out there ,,,,the competition now plays a role...look at the stats sites running stats specifically targeting those projects and teams competing in them.

Yeah, y'know if you're reasonable about it I think it's fine to make a trade-off based on credits. You have to use something, right? But what annoys me is seeing the posts above where people say "I joined this for the credits, now it sucks, bye-bye." I think you can at least pick projects based on the science they do, then prioritize between them using credits if you can't decide how else.

I still think this will only be a temp fix. When the wu's are made longer this will probably be more of a mess as times will be more spread out for everybody.

Why change it at all. 6.5/WU attracts more volunteers. Any attempt to change it will drastically reduce your volunteers as you have already seen. Maybe the other projects will step up to the plate too.

Personally I don't have a problem with what the granted credit has been set to. I'm staying, and so is my overclocked CPU.

Just a question -

http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/show_user.php?userid=2095

What sort of overclocked CPU are you running.. a Pent III :)

Just jabbing at you...nothing personal. I am staying as well, with a couple of my non-overclocked machines, the overclocked ones I reserve for projects that pay enough to keep it, like this one.
http://abcathome.com/show_host_detail.php?hostid=37811

You must be talking about my Pentium 4. I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my Pentium don't like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it. Nah just kidding, that was from an old Clint western. :D

That's an old Pentium 4 I had on my board awhile ago to run some benchmarks. I installed my q6600 again and so I'm using that now. http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/show_host_detail.php?hostid=9119. It's not the best OC, but considering that it's B3 stepping and I'm using 1.41V, it's not that bad either. Those are some pretty high numbers you have at ABC. If I had to guess I'd say you're running above 3700 MHz. Very good overclocking.

I can understand your reasoning about the credit system, and I'm not suggesting people should leave if they don't like it or anything like that. It's up to them. The way I see it is, even with the lower credit numbers, the total credit will still be much higher for machines that turn in more WUs. So I'm happy enough with that.

I agree that granted credit was too high before (although I enjoyed it) and is too low now. Some of my 64 bit Linux boxes are now getting less than claimed, while they get more than claimed on other projects with 64bit applications.

It will certainly put MilkyWay lower on my list of priorities as there are quite a few projects which will give more credit for the same amount of crunching, bigger caches and longer deadlines.

Sure, you can't buy anything with credits, but with so many projects to choose from, credits do mean something to people who are in it for the competition.

You don't need to be the highest "paying" project, but don't strive to be among the lowest.

But you stil have QMC, Cosmo and Riesel Sieve for the credits hunting.

But you stil have QMC, Cosmo and Riesel Sieve for the credits hunting.

There you go again, QMC is not over granting and has not been for many moons, when was the last time you ran a QMC WU ? If fact they never did given all the factors involved with QMC. And their reduction in credit cost them many participants. Milkyway admins should learn from this.
Cosmo, a tad bit high, but nothing out of range given SETI's optimized app.
RS = they are reducing credit today due to their optimized app that was just released. Check your facts first.

I'm one of those would like to see a standard grant of credits per work done across all projects so that there can be a comparison between projects and a fairer camparison of total credits gained across multiple projects. I stopped crunching for Cosmology due to the obscenely high credits granted there which for me devalues an otherwise worthwhile project.
I'm for science first, but want any credits I get to be earned fairly.
It's been a problem since Boinc's inception of how to add apples and pears without people going bananas. Then there was the problem of people cheating their benchmarks and other ways to get more credit than others playing fair.

All my recent 12 minute wus have claimed 1.47 credits or thereabouts. 6.5 was way too high although if the wus were to take 50 mins it'd be about right, so if there are longer wus planned then credit would need to be adjusted accordingly. 2.17 will probably chase some users away but it's probably closer to a realistic value.

Emmanuel said

But what annoys me is seeing the posts above where people say "I joined this for the credits, now it sucks, bye-bye." I think you can at least pick projects based on the science they do, then prioritize between them using credits if you can't decide how else.

Statistics! They are a wonderful thing. The only problem is that they can be manipulated in any way. Sure Riesel Sieve grants 27 credits per work unit, however they grant 27 credits no matter how long it takes to complete the WU (30 min, 1 hr, 2 hrs, etc). Cosmo does the same with their 100 credits per WU. Faster computers may be able to get 50 - 54 credits per hour, but those with slower computers may get less than 15 per hour. The same goes for many projects. We have to put these stats in perspective or otherwise they are just meaningless. 15 hours of crunch time on any of my machines will give me 1000 credits at ABC@home. Why not grant 0 credits per work unit and see who stays only for the science.

I'm one of those would like to see a standard grant of credits per work done across all projects so that there can be a comparison between projects and a fairer camparison of total credits gained across multiple projects. I stopped crunching for Cosmology due to the obscenely high credits granted there which for me devalues an otherwise worthwhile project.
I'm for science first, but want any credits I get to be earned fairly.
It's been a problem since Boinc's inception of how to add apples and pears without people going bananas. Then there was the problem of people cheating their benchmarks and other ways to get more credit than others playing fair.

All my recent 12 minute wus have claimed 1.47 credits or thereabouts. 6.5 was way too high although if the wus were to take 50 mins it'd be about right, so if there are longer wus planned then credit would need to be adjusted accordingly. 2.17 will probably chase some users away but it's probably closer to a realistic value.

Emmanuel said

But what annoys me is seeing the posts above where people say "I joined this for the credits, now it sucks, bye-bye." I think you can at least pick projects based on the science they do, then prioritize between them using credits if you can't decide how else.

I totally agree.

Statistics! They are a wonderful thing. The only problem is that they can be manipulated in any way. Sure Riesel Sieve grants 27 credits per work unit, however they grant 27 credits no matter how long it takes to complete the WU (30 min, 1 hr, 2 hrs, etc). Cosmo does the same with their 100 credits per WU. Faster computers may be able to get 50 - 54 credits per hour, but those with slower computers may get less than 15 per hour. The same goes for many projects. We have to put these stats in perspective or otherwise they are just meaningless. 15 hours of crunch time on any of my machines will give me 1000 credits at ABC@home.

Oh yes, we have to. Its not like everyone had the same computer....

Oh yes, we have to. Its not like everyone had the same computer....

I think 4.5 would be a fair number and still be competitive against other projects. Anything less than that would probably still reduce your "volunteer" base more than you would like to see. Project parity is a pipe dream of David Anderson anyway and a way for him to control all BOINC projects, never mind that a large part of the data he was using was flawed and proven to be so. I really believe that he is using it to try to get back the large part of SETIs volunteer base that have moved on because of the problems there. I really do not want to move on to regular DC projects, but if things keep going the way they are with a credit reduction every time one of us improves the application, that is most likely where I will end up. At least then I would not have to put up with David Anderson's anecdotal behavior. Or maybe we should just make the improvements and use them for ourselves instead of releasing them to the public in general.

Oh yes, we have to. Its not like everyone had the same computer....

Fast or slow computers, the ratio remains the same.

I think 4.5 would be a fair number and still be competitive against other projects. Anything less than that would probably still reduce your "volunteer" base more than you would like to see. Project parity is a pipe dream of David Anderson anyway and a way for him to control all BOINC projects, never mind that a large part of the data he was using was flawed and proven to be so. I really believe that he is using it to try to get back the large part of SETIs volunteer base that have moved on because of the problems there. I really do not want to move on to regular DC projects, but if things keep going the way they are with a credit reduction every time one of us improves the application, that is most likely where I will end up. At least then I would not have to put up with David Anderson's anecdotal behavior. Or maybe we should just make the improvements and use them for ourselves instead of releasing them to the public in general.

Its time to say good bye.

MilkyWay: For 994 sec. work 2.17 points.
PrimeGrid: For 958 sec. work 4.88 points.

Intel Celeron 1,7GHz, 512 MB RAM.


I hope that a lot of crunchers change the project.

This is not the state of the art of changing the credit system. Where are the lot of people with the meaning MW Credits 300% to high?
This is a joke, a very big joke!


Bye

Its time to say good bye.

MilkyWay: For 994 sec. work 2.17 points.
PrimeGrid: For 958 sec. work 4.88 points.

Intel Celeron 1,7GHz, 512 MB RAM.


I hope that a lot of crunchers change the project.

This is not the state of the art of changing the credit system. Where are the lot of people with the meaning MW Credits 300% to high?
This is a joke, a very big joke!


Bye

Yeah. I'm very frustrated.

On second thought -

EDIT _ post deleted. Self moderated.


Got to love halo heads!

RS = they are reducing credit today due to their optimized app that was just released. Check your facts first.

RS = they are reducing credit today due to their optimized app that was just released. Check your facts first.

Erm, can you give me a link to this? The only reference I can find at RS says:

"We've been discussing that issue, and haven't come to a final conclusion yet, partially because the linux versions haven't been released".

Which is what I thought Travis was going to do. Get the apps right accross all platforms, get the WU length/content sorted, and make a balanced judgement.

Didn't quite happen like that though ;)

Al.

I think 4.5 would be a fair number and still be competitive against other projects. Anything less than that would probably still reduce your "volunteer" base more than you would like to see. Project parity is a pipe dream of David Anderson anyway and a way for him to control all BOINC projects, never mind that a large part of the data he was using was flawed and proven to be so. I really believe that he is using it to try to get back the large part of SETIs volunteer base that have moved on because of the problems there. I really do not want to move on to regular DC projects, but if things keep going the way they are with a credit reduction every time one of us improves the application, that is most likely where I will end up. At least then I would not have to put up with David Anderson's anecdotal behavior. Or maybe we should just make the improvements and use them for ourselves instead of releasing them to the public in general.

Ok, it's not only for credits. If you look your teams's stats, your four preferred projects are Seti, ABC, QMC and Milkyway. By chance they are those who give the more credits. Lucky.
Don't answer. Thanks

I think 4.5 would be a fair number and still be competitive against other projects. Anything less than that would probably still reduce your "volunteer" base more than you would like to see. Project parity is a pipe dream of David Anderson anyway and a way for him to control all BOINC projects, never mind that a large part of the data he was using was flawed and proven to be so. I really believe that he is using it to try to get back the large part of SETIs volunteer base that have moved on because of the problems there. I really do not want to move on to regular DC projects, but if things keep going the way they are with a credit reduction every time one of us improves the application, that is most likely where I will end up. At least then I would not have to put up with David Anderson's anecdotal behavior. Or maybe we should just make the improvements and use them for ourselves instead of releasing them to the public in general.

Ok, it's not only for credits. If you look your teams's stats, your four preferred projects are Seti, ABC, QMC and Milkyway. By chance they are those who give the more credits. Lucky.
Don't answer. Thanks

You need to look again. We hold number 1 in several projects that you failed to mention. As a matter of fact, we tend to spread ourselves around quite a bit, especially since Formula BOINC started. And how can you say that SETI gives more credits? That is a laugh for sure.

I think 4.5 would be a fair number and still be competitive against other projects. Anything less than that would probably still reduce your "volunteer" base more than you would like to see. Project parity is a pipe dream of David Anderson anyway and a way for him to control all BOINC projects, never mind that a large part of the data he was using was flawed and proven to be so. I really believe that he is using it to try to get back the large part of SETIs volunteer base that have moved on because of the problems there. I really do not want to move on to regular DC projects, but if things keep going the way they are with a credit reduction every time one of us improves the application, that is most likely where I will end up. At least then I would not have to put up with David Anderson's anecdotal behavior. Or maybe we should just make the improvements and use them for ourselves instead of releasing them to the public in general.

Ok, it's not only for credits. If you look your teams's stats, your four preferred projects are Seti, ABC, QMC and Milkyway. By chance they are those who give the more credits. Lucky.
Don't answer. Thanks

You need to look again. We hold number 1 in several projects that you failed to mention. As a matter of fact, we tend to spread ourselves around quite a bit, especially since Formula BOINC started. And how can you say that SETI gives more credits? That is a laugh for sure.

Sarge, he obviously doesn't know that the team regularly asks team members to crunch a project on a rotating basis to support it or improve the teams position regardless of whether it pays well or not.

Often the team pulls crunching power to lower paying projects.

But, then he wouldn't know that since he's not a member of the team.

And I would prefer see people interested in a project because of the subject instead of intereted by the local higher credits.

While everyone here has a right to his/her opinion, I'm still waiting to hear from the admin. Lets face it it's their project and their not stupid, they know this credit thing will determine alot about the user/cruncher base of this project.
Then again they may feel this is not open for discussion.
____________
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory

While everyone here has a right to his/her opinion, I'm still waiting to hear from the admin. Lets face it it's their project and their not stupid, they know this credit thing will determine alot about the user/cruncher base of this project.
Then again they may feel this is not open for discussion.

That's right. But I don't want to discuss to death ;-)
I only find curious (stupid?) that for the same amount of work you get x from one project, y from another and z from another.
It's as curious as you have three guys doing the same job in the same company. The first like white shirts and he gets $50,000 pert year, the second $60,000 because of its blue shirts and the third $70,000 because of its green shirts.
Not very constructive. And I would prefer see people interested in a project because of the subject instead of intereted by the local higher credits.

RS is still at 27 per wu....edit: Thats on P4 xpsp2 266G-514R 1hr35min per wu

RS is still at 27 per wu....edit: Thats on P4 xpsp2 266G-514R 1hr35min per wu

Ouch! So it is! I'm picking up crazy credit on 2 of my hosts ATM! ;)

Quick! Someone call DA! EMERGENCY!!!!!

;)

Al.

That's right. But I don't want to discuss to death ;-)
I only find curious (stupid?) that for the same amount of work you get x from one project, y from another and z from another.
It's as curious as you have three guys doing the same job in the same company. The first like white shirts and he gets $50,000 pert year, the second $60,000 because of its blue shirts and the third $70,000 because of its green shirts.
Not very constructive. And I would prefer see people interested in a project because of the subject instead of intereted by the local higher credits.

Be careful throwing around the word stupid! I and my team mates could get very offended by that reference.
What does it matter why someone crunches a project. You do it for the science (or so you say) and I do it for the credits. We both accomplish the same thing and the science gets done. If it were not for the credits, just how much science do you think would get done? There are many more who crunch for the credits than those who do it only for the science and they are usually the ones who have the large farms. If this were not true then there would be no need for credits. I would be willing to bet that if all projects quit giving credits they would very quickly die from lack of participation. SO credits are much more important than you think.

Back from the easter holidays and I just see drastically dropped credits.

With the optimized apps, those relatively high credits were honestly earned. When the same work as before ist done in half the time, double credit/timeunit is the only acceptable crediting.

I detached at once never to return. I feel offended.

Or, as we say here, "verarschen kann ich mich allein".

Bye, Groundhog

Back from the easter holidays and I just see drastically dropped credits.

With the optimized apps, those relatively high credits were honestly earned. When the same work as before ist done in half the time, double credit/timeunit is the only acceptable crediting.

I detached at once never to return. I feel offended.

Or, as we say here, "verarschen kann ich mich allein".

Bye, Groundhog

... There are many more who crunch for the credits than those who do it only for the science and they are usually the ones who have the large farms....

I think this is very debatable and incorrect.

The overwhelming majority do not care for credits. The overwhelming majority, 300,000+ users, never read any of the fora, never post. That they may monitor credits with their BOINC Manager is then something done as an intellectual exercise or as game/race amongst themselves not as is discussed-without-end by the same credit-hungry that tend to post the same whines in all the fora of all the projects.

The largest, so-termed server-farms, mostly seem to be Einstein project-based and most certainly do not do calculations for credit as they only do Einstein calculations. As for others... they may do many calculations, they may have a significant percentage of the work calculated, but they are in the extreme minority when viewed as a percentage of users.

If they leave... so what? There will still be 300,000+ users doing calculations with more than 300,000 computers connected. Perhaps some projects will see a slow-down in calculations but the work will still be completed.


____________

The farmers who do it for the credit far out weighs those who do it strictly for the science.

... There are many more who crunch for the credits than those who do it only for the science and they are usually the ones who have the large farms....

I think this is very debatable and incorrect.

The overwhelming majority do not care for credits. The overwhelming majority, 300,000+ users, never read any of the fora, never post. That they may monitor credits with their BOINC Manager is then something done as an intellectual exercise or as game/race amongst themselves not as is discussed-without-end by the same credit-hungry that tend to post the same whines in all the fora of all the projects.

The largest, so-termed server-farms, mostly seem to be Einstein project-based and most certainly do not do calculations for credit as they only do Einstein calculations. As for others... they may do many calculations, they may have a significant percentage of the work calculated, but they are in the extreme minority when viewed as a percentage of users.

If they leave... so what? There will still be 300,000+ users doing calculations with more than 300,000 computers connected. Perhaps some projects will see a slow-down in calculations but the work will still be completed.

The overwhelming majority do not care for credits.

The overwhelming majority, 300,000+ users

The largest, so-termed server-farms, mostly seem to be Einstein project-based

and most certainly do not do calculations for credit as they only do Einstein calculations. As for others... they may do many calculations, they may have a significant percentage of the work calculated, but they are in the extreme minority when viewed as a percentage of users.

If they leave... so what? There will still be 300,000+
users doing calculations with more than 300,000 computers connected.

Back on topic here. I think 4.5 is fair and after looking at the poll thread, it would appear that the majority are saying 4.25 to 4.5.

Back on topic here. I think 4.5 is fair and after looking at the poll thread, it would appear that the majority are saying 4.25 to 4.5.

If they leave... so what? There will still be 300,000+ users doing calculations with more than 300,000 computers connected.

...Erm, you've got me with that stat. Boincers are up about 1.2million IIRC. MW is nowhere near that.

You post all the time at BOINCstats and yet you don't bother looking at the detailed statistics? As of a moment ago, there are listed 315 724 active users in the last 30 days. Many of these would do have split CPID so it is only a rough, over-estimate. As for computers, active is at 560 978. Given the numerous duplications of computers this is a huge over-estimatation.

The largest, so-termed server-farms, mostly seem to be Einstein project-based...

Link to these 'facts' please?

Go into the BOINCstat statistics for the users with most credits and see how many of the top users are university-based for Einstein.

... extreme minority when viewed as a percentage of users.

So, a significant percentage is now a minority.

I'm struggling here ...

As is evident

If they leave... so what? There will still be 300,000+
users doing calculations with more than 300,000 computers connected....

Ah, I can see where you've gone wrong. You're talking bollocks.

How many BOINCers are there?

How many crunch this project?

Crikey, that was hard work.

Al.

Evidently it is such for you.

That's right. But I don't want to discuss to death ;-)
I only find curious (stupid?) that for the same amount of work you get x from one project, y from another and z from another.
It's as curious as you have three guys doing the same job in the same company. The first like white shirts and he gets $50,000 pert year, the second $60,000 because of its blue shirts and the third $70,000 because of its green shirts.
Not very constructive. And I would prefer see people interested in a project because of the subject instead of intereted by the local higher credits.

Go into the BOINCstat statistics for the users with most credits and see how many of the top users are university-based for Einstein.