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.

OK, I've started one :)

Al.

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 agree, i'll keep MW running, but i'll lower the priority.

For me the best stat is the % stat for each project. I'm still new, but i'll try to reach the top 90 % on 1 or 2 projects asap.

---

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.

In that case it's locigal that the credit have to be re-adjusted. ;-)

---

Member of BOINC@Heidelberg and ATA!

My BOINCstats

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.

Ok, I apologize, tell him I am sorry. - I have a couple Pent 4's as well, and I know, they are temperamental beasts, work horses. I have a Pent 4 as my - GET THIS, my main computer at home. It is totally tricked out, 3 internal IDE 45 Gig, 4 internal SCSI 90 Gig(RAID), 1 external SCSI CD-RW(Jewel case model), 1 External CD/RW SCSI(its own controller). 1 external SCSI 120 Gig Tape backup, 1 Internal DVD RW/ROM, and a USB 180 Gig external IDE/USB (for my "tunes") that I map a network drive and attach a couple of low end lappys attached to the home stereo system. I call him "BOSS" really! he has been with me for many moons, I am thinking almost going on 9 years, and going strong. He runs 24/7 and only reboots and hangs on occasion.

And the top machine I have on ABC - the one I posted is clocked at 4.4- Phase cooled to -58C.

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.

Credits should be what the computer asks for with a cap.....4 or whatever.

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.

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.

It is checked, thank you.
QMC gives me 666 credits for 15 hours,that's 42/hour,
Cosmo gives 100 credits for 3.5 hours, that's 29/hour,
Riesel gives 27 credits for 31 minutes, that's 52/hour....

You can compare this with the 15 credits/hour for Rosetta, Spinhenge, LHC, ...

If reducing credits of a project, to bring them to the BOINC credits average, cost some participants, then it's only about credits and ranking.

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. 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.

Ray,
All these are dicussed for a long time (see the big discussion in the Rosetta board, two years ago).
The main goal is science. But credits and competition are important points in this hobby (for me also). But competition can only be made if the rules are the same for everybody and every projects.
But ..... cemetery are full of idealist ;-)

---

Tired to crunch alone? Join BOINC Synergy, the most exciting team in the galaxy.

.Join now!

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.

Please don't compare different computers. The numbers I gave you are made with the same computer: from the max 52/hour to the min 15/hour.
This is not normal.

---

Tired to crunch alone? Join BOINC Synergy, the most exciting team in the galaxy.

.Join now!

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....

Fast or slow computers, the ratio remains the same.

---

Tired to crunch alone? Join BOINC Synergy, the most exciting team in the galaxy.

.Join now!

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.

Well, let's get real project parity then. Outlaw all computers except the P4 630. Then everybody will always get the same credit for every WU. Oh yeah, we need to outlaw over clocking as well since that is an optimization (like the optimized applications)and would give some people an unfair advantage and have an adverse impact on cross-project parity.

Sheeesh!!

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

---

Tired to crunch alone? Join BOINC Synergy, the most exciting team in the galaxy.

.Join now!