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

There are only 5 Universities in the Top 50 listing. One of these is no longer crunching anything, so that leaves 4. Not as many as you lead us to believe. That means 46 of the top 50 are either individuals or groups that are crunching for one team or another. Kinda shoots that theory down.

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.

Too late, you brought it up.

Hmm, 3 guys doing the same job for the same company ?? How do you figure that.

3 different projects = 3 different companies. If company A wants to attract better workers,.. I.e. Not halo heads, but those that know what they are worth, then they pay more. Free Enterprise, aint it great!!

And I am going to start to wear green shirts!!

...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.

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

There are 1,312,000 BOINC users (not computers).

I took a few minutes to add the total cobblestones of the top 100 crunchers. Their credits total 3,494,580,943, yes, 3.5 BILLION credits. The total BOINC credits for all 1.3 million users is 50,427,072,282.

Therefore, just those 100 crunchers represent 7% of 'every' credit crunched. Those 100 crunchers are 0.0076% of all the 1.3 million crunchers.

Now, let's add in the top 500 crunchers (I averaged each 100 user page so I didn't have to add 400 more entries). The top 500 crunchers (0.038% of all crunchers) account for 6,614,636,443 cobblestones or 13% of 'every' credit crunched.

And what is the lesson? You lose the large farmers and you lost your farm, and we're 'only' talking about the top 500 farmers.

Lesson class in farming is over.

---

CLICK TO HELP BUILD

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.

Well, that is the result so far as I've counted:

Credits   amount
  4         27
  4,5       9
  4,2       4
  3,25      4
  4,25      3

Rest is neglectable.
So 4 is voted most.

---

Member of BOINC@Heidelberg and ATA!

My BOINCstats

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.

The overwhelming majority do not care for credits.

Correct. We like to have fun. And do some science.

The overwhelming majority, 300,000+ users

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

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

Link to these 'facts' please?

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.

So, a significant percentage is now a minority.

I'm struggling here ...

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.

... 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.

You can think that if you want. How many of those who hook up and forget it run more than 1 computer? Not very many I would think. And then they are not there for the science. They are there because they thought it would be cool. Count the numbers who say they do it for the science and compare that to the numbers who do it for the credits and you are outnumbered. The robots who hook up and then forget it are not in it for the science or the credits so they do not count. I am a small farmer, but my farm consists of 30 cores crunching 24/7. I have fellow team members who run into the 100s of computers. One has control of over 800 computers. By sheer numbers of people they probably do outnumber us, but as far as crunching power, no way do they beat us credit mongers. Just ask some of the people at SETI about the boycott that took place there in 2006. But you keep thinking it your way if that makes you feel good. As I said, they give credits for a reason and that reason is the people who are in it for the competition. When the credits get too low and the competitors leave, then the project suffers.

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

And, as a result, the farmers actually do More Science!

Perfect.

Al.

... 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.

---

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

Take note admin: This is just the beginning of the decent!

---

A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory

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

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.

SargeD@SETI.USA hit the proverbial "nail on the head" The farmers who do it for the credit far out weighs those who do it strictly for the science. Why else keep score. How many people would go to their favorite sporting event if no score was kept. There is nothing better than a little competition. I will run those projects that I can get the most credit out of. And I tell you, I've tried most of them.

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.

Chuckle Chuckle Smirk!! ;o)

---

A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory

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.

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.

As a business they can choose what to charge, in this case pay, for their product. We as a customer choose which product (project) we want to purchase.

---

CLICK TO HELP BUILD

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

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

Each to their own, I don't impose my preference on others. Quite frankly, why they crunch a project is up to them.
The project is a business and a cruncher is a customer and what a customer chooses to purchase is their decision. Solid colored shirts over striped over.....

---

CLICK TO HELP BUILD

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.

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.