Well, I've readed this long enough, I finally have to say something to it the once and only time...

John McLeod wrote:

I would love to take it up with the project developers, however, they seem to be unreachable.

I don't think they will ever talk to you.
It was said more than once in this thread, and you can take a look at this and this thread, that the community here has voted for credit and the admins had an ear and took care about it.
Thing now is: I don't see you voting in the first thread, John...
So why do you think you alone can have the power now to change the credits again, just because there are some small people (which you are speaking for I guess) thinking a cross project parity should be introduced?
I don't think that only one person here can force to change the credit level again, it's just a Sisyphus stone you're trying to push up the hill, but you will fail for sure...
Good luck for your discussions on all the other 60 projects... ;-)
Come back when you managed to convince at least 40 of them... ;-D

John McLeod wrote:

There are a few reasons that SETI is considered the standard for the moment. SETI is the first BOINC project. SETI is also just about the middle of the pack for credit allocation. SETI also uses FLOPS counting which is the most reliable method for determining credit with their stock application.

Well, SETI maybe was the first BOINC project, but I believe, it will be also the first BIG project which will be off the air.
It's future is threatened, when Arecibo is cutted down because of lack of money.
What project should then be the "standard" for your so called "cross project parity"?

Edit:
Besides that...
I find it interesting that you're crunching MilkyWay despite of finding the credits inappropiate. ;-)

---

Member of BOINC@Heidelberg and ATA!

My BOINCstats

troll'in, troll'in, troll'in....

keep them baits a float'in....

get them members go'in....

I have never seen a post by one of the credit police that a project is giving out too little credit ....
Guess it only works one way ... down, down, down
Boinc and Dr. A know all please comply, or we will hunt you ... down, down, down
Omg your project is giving out .000001 more than Seti, you must go ... down, down, down

If you really need to spend your time fixing Boinc why do you not get the ^75% of the projects that do not get close to the credit police's 1.000000 standard score to comply. Here's a whole list of projects too choose from:

http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/get_cpcs.php

Oh yea all projects must give out credit that is equal to or less than Seti.

I keep forgetting that Dr. A and Seti are the all knowing gods of Boinc.

Q. Why are we not all on our knees, and shaking at the mere posting of the credit police?

A. If the credit police can get the other projects to stop giving out less than average credit, then they would have an argument.
Since they work it only one way they have no credibility.

Your too high... you must go ... down, down, down
Your too low ... much better, do not step on the all wise and knowing seti's toes

LMAO

There was an OR clause that is missing from the first quote. The rest of the statement is missing. Sometimes a partial statement taken out of context is much more inflammatory than the whole statement.

In trying to format the quotes I think I got things a bit messed up - I was trying to get it done before going off to work. The parts quoted were meant to point out how you pay so much attention to the way things are said, that you do not address what's actually being said. And this response was another example of that. Specifically then: He asked if you had read the post (all other wording removed) - you did not answer that question.

No, I am not a developer for SETI. I have done a bit of development on the BOINC platrform.

Ok, I was wrong here and apologize for reacting on someone else's post without confirming facts.

There are a few reasons that SETI is considered the standard for the moment. SETI is the first BOINC project. SETI is also just about the middle of the pack for credit allocation. SETI also uses FLOPS counting which is the most reliable method for determining credit with their stock application.

Thanks for that explaination. Despite my postings 'against' you, I actually would like to see a reliable and fair method for credit calculation.

John, you could achieve a lot more in this quest if you could also address the issues or questions that are posted, and not just the personal remarks.

To those who get insulting - you would also achieve a lot more if you didn't.

Rod

No, I am not a developer for SETI. I have done a bit of development on the BOINC platrform.

Ok, I was wrong here and apologize for reacting on someone else's post without confirming facts.

I just based that on the fact that this is how his message board profile reads at SETI:

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

<shrug> I guess they're wrong then.

---

No, I am not a developer for SETI. I have done a bit of development on the BOINC platrform.

Ok, I was wrong here and apologize for reacting on someone else's post without confirming facts.

I just based that on the fact that this is how his message board profile reads at SETI:

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

<shrug> I guess they're wrong then.

I'll take a wild stab @ why JMV has the Developers Title @ SETI. He has been with the BOINC SETI Project since its Inception as have a lot of people including myself. But he also has had a lot of input into the Development of the BOINC Clients & many BOINC Projects. So even though he isn't a Developer Per Se the the Title may have been bestowed upon him much like a Honorary Title for the big help he has been to the Development of the BOINC Projects & Client.

I may be all wet on that but thats how I view it anyway ... :) ... I've known John for close to 6 years and have had casual post with him on different matters. Thats why it's kinda perplexing to me to see him act this way, usually he's above the Fray of this sort of stuff.

Maybe from his being around all the raving Lunatics over in the SETI Project Forums some of that Lunacy has rubbed off on him ... ;)

No, I am not a developer for SETI. I have done a bit of development on the BOINC platrform.

Ok, I was wrong here and apologize for reacting on someone else's post without confirming facts.

I just based that on the fact that this is how his message board profile reads at SETI:

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

<shrug> I guess they're wrong then.

That was put there when S@H was the only project as I had done some development for BOINC at that point.

---

BOINC WIKI

No, I am not a developer for SETI. I have done a bit of development on the BOINC platrform.

Ok, I was wrong here and apologize for reacting on someone else's post without confirming facts.

I just based that on the fact that this is how his message board profile reads at SETI:

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

<shrug> I guess they're wrong then.

I'll take a wild stab @ why JMV has the Developers Title @ SETI. He has been with the BOINC SETI Project since its Inception as have a lot of people including myself. But he also has had a lot of input into the Development of the BOINC Clients & many BOINC Projects. So even though he isn't a Developer Per Se the the Title may have been bestowed upon him much like a Honorary Title for the big help he has been to the Development of the BOINC Projects & Client.

I may be all wet on that but thats how I view it anyway ... :) ... I've known John for close to 6 years and have had casual post with him on different matters. Thats why it's kinda perplexing to me to see him act this way, usually he's above the Fray of this sort of stuff.

Maybe from his being around all the raving Lunatics over in the SETI Project Forums some of that Lunacy has rubbed off on him ... ;)

That is pretty much correct.

---

BOINC WIKI

There was an OR clause that is missing from the first quote. The rest of the statement is missing. Sometimes a partial statement taken out of context is much more inflammatory than the whole statement.

In trying to format the quotes I think I got things a bit messed up - I was trying to get it done before going off to work. The parts quoted were meant to point out how you pay so much attention to the way things are said, that you do not address what's actually being said. And this response was another example of that. Specifically then: He asked if you had read the post (all other wording removed) - you did not answer that question.

No, I am not a developer for SETI. I have done a bit of development on the BOINC platrform.

Ok, I was wrong here and apologize for reacting on someone else's post without confirming facts.

There are a few reasons that SETI is considered the standard for the moment. SETI is the first BOINC project. SETI is also just about the middle of the pack for credit allocation. SETI also uses FLOPS counting which is the most reliable method for determining credit with their stock application.

Thanks for that explaination. Despite my postings 'against' you, I actually would like to see a reliable and fair method for credit calculation.

John, you could achieve a lot more in this quest if you could also address the issues or questions that are posted, and not just the personal remarks.

To those who get insulting - you would also achieve a lot more if you didn't.

Rod

SETI may have to move to another radio telescope. There was some talk of setting up an instrument at Parkes at one point.

I would like there not to be a particular project that is the standard, and I would like it to be automatic as well. There has been difficulty thinking of exactly how to do this.

I apologize for allowing myself to stoop to the level of some of the other posters here. I am perfectly capable of holding a reasonable discussion.

---

BOINC WIKI

The principal designer of BOINC has come up with an idea that would ENFORCE cross project parity, but would also cause long term DEFLATION in credit grants. I would really hate for him to get tired of the cross project credit parity debates and actually implement his idea. The problem is that a CPU that is granted 100 CS / day NOW would be granted about 50 CS / day 18 months from now when CPU speeds double - this is not my idea of how to fix the problem, but I believe that the cross project parity problem will be fixed somehow. I would much rather have a political solution that involves telling projects that are way out of line with credit grants than a draconian measure that keeps reducing credit grants into the future.

Well that is one way to do it, but isn't the more correct way to have those new faster processors get 200 CS/day and keep the current processor getting 100 CS /day? In any case there is nothing else that is fair. Unless he wants to grant CS based on the number of KWH that the machine uses!

Now for people who re-compile the app to run faster than stock on their machine, what to do is another issue. They do less work so they should get less credit per work unit.

Gary

---

The principal designer of BOINC has come up with an idea that would ENFORCE cross project parity, but would also cause long term DEFLATION in credit grants. I would really hate for him to get tired of the cross project credit parity debates and actually implement his idea. The problem is that a CPU that is granted 100 CS / day NOW would be granted about 50 CS / day 18 months from now when CPU speeds double - this is not my idea of how to fix the problem, but I believe that the cross project parity problem will be fixed somehow. I would much rather have a political solution that involves telling projects that are way out of line with credit grants than a draconian measure that keeps reducing credit grants into the future.

Well that is one way to do it, but isn't the more correct way to have those new faster processors get 200 CS/day and keep the current processor getting 100 CS /day? In any case there is nothing else that is fair. Unless he wants to grant CS based on the number of KWH that the machine uses!

Now for people who re-compile the app to run faster than stock on their machine, what to do is another issue. They do less work so they should get less credit per work unit.

Gary

I did not say it was a particularly good way. As a mater of fact I argued against it when it came up.

---

BOINC WIKI

The principal designer of BOINC has come up with an idea that would ENFORCE cross project parity, but would also cause long term DEFLATION in credit grants. I would really hate for him to get tired of the cross project credit parity debates and actually implement his idea. The problem is that a CPU that is granted 100 CS / day NOW would be granted about 50 CS / day 18 months from now when CPU speeds double - this is not my idea of how to fix the problem, but I believe that the cross project parity problem will be fixed somehow. I would much rather have a political solution that involves telling projects that are way out of line with credit grants than a draconian measure that keeps reducing credit grants into the future.

Well that is one way to do it, but isn't the more correct way to have those new faster processors get 200 CS/day and keep the current processor getting 100 CS /day? In any case there is nothing else that is fair. Unless he wants to grant CS based on the number of KWH that the machine uses!

Now for people who re-compile the app to run faster than stock on their machine, what to do is another issue. They do less work so they should get less credit per work unit.

Gary

I did not say it was a particularly good way. As a mater of fact I argued against it when it came up.

Well you better argue harder John because if thats implemented I think you would see a mass Exodus to the DC Projects were there each Project give whatever it chooses ... :)

Could one of the Admins delete this thread before it takes down the server?

Voltron

The principal designer of BOINC has come up with an idea that would ENFORCE cross project parity, but would also cause long term DEFLATION in credit grants. I would really hate for him to get tired of the cross project credit parity debates and actually implement his idea. The problem is that a CPU that is granted 100 CS / day NOW would be granted about 50 CS / day 18 months from now when CPU speeds double - this is not my idea of how to fix the problem, but I believe that the cross project parity problem will be fixed somehow. I would much rather have a political solution that involves telling projects that are way out of line with credit grants than a draconian measure that keeps reducing credit grants into the future.

Well that is one way to do it, but isn't the more correct way to have those new faster processors get 200 CS/day and keep the current processor getting 100 CS /day? In any case there is nothing else that is fair. Unless he wants to grant CS based on the number of KWH that the machine uses!

Now for people who re-compile the app to run faster than stock on their machine, what to do is another issue. They do less work so they should get less credit per work unit.

Gary

I did not say it was a particularly good way. As a mater of fact I argued against it when it came up.

Well you better argue harder John because if thats implemented I think you would see a mass Exodus to the DC Projects were there each Project give whatever it chooses ... :)

I hope that those of us that argued against it have won that one. There may be ideas on how to get CPP to work right.

---

BOINC WIKI

The design of BOINC was to have approximate cross project parity in credits. Any project that is grossly out of line intentionally is intentionally breaking a design goal of BOINC, and has been a goal of BOINC since the very beginning.

Interesting. Perhaps you should read "BOINC: A System for Public-Resource Computing and Storage" by Dr. Anderson written in 2004. Particularly section 2.1. You can find it here...http://boinc.berkeley.edu/grid_paper_04.pdf

This is going to be long, so I apologize.

2.1 Goals of BOINC
BOINC’s general goal is to advance the public resource
computing paradigm: to encourage the creation of
many projects, and to encourage a large fraction of the
world’s computer owners to participate in one or more
projects. Specific goals include:
Reduce the barriers of entry to public-resource computing.
BOINC allows a research scientist with moderate
computer skills to create and operate a large public-resource
computing project with about a week of initial work and an
hour per week of maintenance. The server for a BOINCbased
project can consist of a single machine configured
with common open-source software (Linux, Apache, PHP,
MySQL, Python).
Share resources among autonomous projects.
BOINC-based projects are autonomous. Projects are not
centrally authorized or registered. Each project operates
its own servers and stands completely on its own. Nevertheless,
PC owners can seamlessly participate in multiple
projects, and can assign to each project a ”resource share”
determining how scarce resource (such as CPU and disk
space) are divided among projects. If most participants
register with multiple projects, then overall resource utilization
is improved: while one project is closed for repairs,
other projects temporarily inherit its computing power. On
a particular computer, the CPU might work for one project
while the network is transferring files for another.
Support diverse applications. BOINC accommodates
a wide range of applications; it provides flexible and scalable
mechanism for distributing data, and its scheduling algorithms
intelligently match requirements with resources.
Existing applications in common languages (C, C++, FORTRAN)
can run as BOINC applications with little or no
modification. An application can consist of several files
(e.g. multiple programs and a coordinating script). New
versions of applications can be deployed with no participant
involvement.
Reward participants. Public-resource computing
projects must provide ”incentives” in order to attract and
retain participants. The primary incentive for many participants
is credit: a numeric measure of how much computation
they have contributed. BOINC provides a creditaccounting
system that reflects usage of multiple resource
types (CPU, network, disk), is common across multiple
projects, and is highly resistant to ”cheating” (attempts to
gain undeserved credit). BOINC also makes it easy for
projects to add visualization graphics to their applications,
which can provide screensaver graphics.

Maybe it is in secret code, but I do not see "cross project parity in credits" as a goal of BOINC.

When it is all said and done, when my bones have turned to dust, it will matter not how much credit I was granted. It will matter to me that I have made some contribution to the scientific community. (I know...I'll be dead and no one will care what matters to me). Fate did not deal me the "Brilliant Scientist" card, but BOINC gives me the opportunity to contribute something. And that something is better than nothing. All I ask for is some credits. Credits that do not cost anything.

The last part of section 2.1 above talks about incentive and credit being the primary one. If all credit were to be equal then the only incentive left (as mentioned) is visual graphics. We are not children who are easily amused by shiny, pretty objects (okay...maybe a little.) This leaves the scientific value of a project. This can be measured in many ways but is completely subjective and is based on the perceptions of the volunteer. Feedback can be one of the ways of measuring value. "Show me what we have done." I can think of several projects that fall short in that aspect. Don't worry, I'm sure someone will come along and point them out to you.

I do not post often. And I pretty much avoid this nonsense. But I can take only so much. Why does the credit mean so much to you? I'm a Credit Whore and I don't go around to the low paying projects and raise a stink, but I still participate. Why do you want us to get less? Why don't you spend your time on something that really needs saving like the environment and leave the credit system alone.

Credt....ohhh yes Credit.

I see the argument continuously that BOINC Credits have no real value. However these credits do have an intrinsic value. A participant's mere possession of credit in relation to other participants creates that intrinsic value. This feeling of value provides participants information of how much one has contributed towards "real" science.

So yes, one can argue that this value of credit should be equal among the projects.

I would even be willing to concede to the notion of cross-project parity.

However when DA and the self-appointed "credit police" continuously attack the projects that "pay" more credit than the norm and blatently ignore those projects that grant less credit, it is impossible to give any credibility to this crusade.

Case in point: When DA approached QMC and practically threatened them that if they did not reduce their credits they would be adjusted via the stat sites. QMC quickly did what they were told. Did DA approach any projects that grant sub-par credits, like Spinhenge@home? Well I'm still waiting on that one.

It is quite possible that the BOINC Community would adopt the cross-project parity campaign with open arms if all projects were treated equally. Until then participants, like myself, that have and continue to be alienated (no pun intended) by DA and the "credit police" will continue to be vocally opposed to the notion....

The design of BOINC was to have approximate cross project parity in credits. Any project that is grossly out of line intentionally is intentionally breaking a design goal of BOINC, and has been a goal of BOINC since the very beginning.

Interesting. Perhaps you should read "BOINC: A System for Public-Resource Computing and Storage" by Dr. Anderson written in 2004. Particularly section 2.1. You can find it here...http://boinc.berkeley.edu/grid_paper_04.pdf

This is going to be long, so I apologize.

2.1 Goals of BOINC
BOINC’s general goal is to advance the public resource
computing paradigm: to encourage the creation of
many projects, and to encourage a large fraction of the
world’s computer owners to participate in one or more
projects. Specific goals include:
Reduce the barriers of entry to public-resource computing.
BOINC allows a research scientist with moderate
computer skills to create and operate a large public-resource
computing project with about a week of initial work and an
hour per week of maintenance. The server for a BOINCbased
project can consist of a single machine configured
with common open-source software (Linux, Apache, PHP,
MySQL, Python).
Share resources among autonomous projects.
BOINC-based projects are autonomous. Projects are not
centrally authorized or registered. Each project operates
its own servers and stands completely on its own. Nevertheless,
PC owners can seamlessly participate in multiple
projects, and can assign to each project a ”resource share”
determining how scarce resource (such as CPU and disk
space) are divided among projects. If most participants
register with multiple projects, then overall resource utilization
is improved: while one project is closed for repairs,
other projects temporarily inherit its computing power. On
a particular computer, the CPU might work for one project
while the network is transferring files for another.
Support diverse applications. BOINC accommodates
a wide range of applications; it provides flexible and scalable
mechanism for distributing data, and its scheduling algorithms
intelligently match requirements with resources.
Existing applications in common languages (C, C++, FORTRAN)
can run as BOINC applications with little or no
modification. An application can consist of several files
(e.g. multiple programs and a coordinating script). New
versions of applications can be deployed with no participant
involvement.
Reward participants. Public-resource computing
projects must provide ”incentives” in order to attract and
retain participants. The primary incentive for many participants
is credit: a numeric measure of how much computation
they have contributed. BOINC provides a creditaccounting
system that reflects usage of multiple resource
types (CPU, network, disk), is common across multiple
projects, and is highly resistant to ”cheating” (attempts to
gain undeserved credit). BOINC also makes it easy for
projects to add visualization graphics to their applications,
which can provide screensaver graphics.

Maybe it is in secret code, but I do not see "cross project parity in credits" as a goal of BOINC.

When it is all said and done, when my bones have turned to dust, it will matter not how much credit I was granted. It will matter to me that I have made some contribution to the scientific community. (I know...I'll be dead and no one will care what matters to me). Fate did not deal me the "Brilliant Scientist" card, but BOINC gives me the opportunity to contribute something. And that something is better than nothing. All I ask for is some credits. Credits that do not cost anything.

The last part of section 2.1 above talks about incentive and credit being the primary one. If all credit were to be equal then the only incentive left (as mentioned) is visual graphics. We are not children who are easily amused by shiny, pretty objects (okay...maybe a little.) This leaves the scientific value of a project. This can be measured in many ways but is completely subjective and is based on the perceptions of the volunteer. Feedback can be one of the ways of measuring value. "Show me what we have done." I can think of several projects that fall short in that aspect. Don't worry, I'm sure someone will come along and point them out to you.

I do not post often. And I pretty much avoid this nonsense. But I can take only so much. Why does the credit mean so much to you? I'm a Credit Whore and I don't go around to the low paying projects and raise a stink, but I still participate. Why do you want us to get less? Why don't you spend your time on something that really needs saving like the environment and leave the credit system alone.

It is in this section at the bottom.

Reward participants. Public-resource computing
projects must provide ”incentives” in order to attract and
retain participants. The primary incentive for many participants
is credit: a numeric measure of how much computation
they have contributed. BOINC provides a creditaccounting
system that reflects usage of multiple resource
types (CPU, network, disk), is common across multiple
projects, and is highly resistant to ”cheating” (attempts to
gain undeserved credit). BOINC also makes it easy for
projects to add visualization graphics to their applications,
which can provide screensaver graphics.

Note the words "is common across multiple projects". What does that mean other than the projects should have a common credit system?

---

BOINC WIKI

Credt....ohhh yes Credit.

I see the argument continuously that BOINC Credits have no real value. However these credits do have an intrinsic value. A participant's mere possession of credit in relation to other participants creates that intrinsic value. This feeling of value provides participants information of how much one has contributed towards "real" science.

So yes, one can argue that this value of credit should be equal among the projects.

I would even be willing to concede to the notion of cross-project parity.

However when DA and the self-appointed "credit police" continuously attack the projects that "pay" more credit than the norm and blatently ignore those projects that grant less credit, it is impossible to give any credibility to this crusade.

Case in point: When DA approached QMC and practically threatened them that if they did not reduce their credits they would be adjusted via the stat sites. QMC quickly did what they were told. Did DA approach any projects that grant sub-par credits, like Spinhenge@home? Well I'm still waiting on that one.

It is quite possible that the BOINC Community would adopt the cross-project parity campaign with open arms if all projects were treated equally. Until then participants, like myself, that have and continue to be alienated (no pun intended) by DA and the "credit police" will continue to be vocally opposed to the notion....

It bothers us. Any real solution has to include those projects as well.

---

BOINC WIKI

and is highly resistant to ”cheating” (attempts to
gain undeserved credit)

Boy, did they get that part wrong ... :P

It is in this section at the bottom.

Reward participants. Public-resource computing
projects must provide ”incentives” in order to attract and
retain participants. The primary incentive for many participants
is credit: a numeric measure of how much computation
they have contributed. BOINC provides a creditaccounting
system that reflects usage of multiple resource
types (CPU, network, disk), is common across multiple
projects, and is highly resistant to ”cheating” (attempts to
gain undeserved credit). BOINC also makes it easy for
projects to add visualization graphics to their applications,
which can provide screensaver graphics.

Note the words "is common across multiple projects". What does that mean other than the projects should have a common credit system?

Common is not the same as equal. Credits should be calculated using the same methodology, a common system. The first part of that sentence (which you left out) states "...that reflects usage of multiple resource types (CPU, network, disk)..." Does every project use those resources in the exact same way? Does every computer have resources equal to every other computer? No, of course not. They are not equal and credits will not be equal. I know that you realize this and this is all about granting excessive credit. Once again...so what? Projects have been given autonomy and a credit system to use as an incentive. Let them use it. If WCG or Rosetta doubles their credit, increase their participation & FLOPS, and actually make that discovery that cures a disease that one day may afflict you, will you whine about the credits then, John?

It also states this...

Share resources among autonomous projects.
BOINC-based projects are autonomous. Projects are not
centrally authorized or registered. Each project operates
its own servers and stands completely on its own.

Then why would Dr. Anderson himself use strong-arm tactics to pressure "autonomous" projects to modify their credits.

What is with the obession of credits? These egalitarian views are like something out of a Vonnegut story and Dr. Anderson thinks he's the Handicapper General.

Life is not fair, why should BOINC be any different?

Were you treated unfairly as a child and are now trying to compensate by being our champion of fairness? Well guess what...I don't need a champion, I didn't ask for one and 99% of the community here doesn't want one either. Where will it stop? After you make the credits fair what will you champion then John? Resource share fairness? Are you going to force us to give equal time to every project. That sounds fair!

Life is not fair, BOINC is not fair....get over it!

---

Credt....ohhh yes Credit.

I see the argument continuously that BOINC Credits have no real value. However these credits do have an intrinsic value. A participant's mere possession of credit in relation to other participants creates that intrinsic value. This feeling of value provides participants information of how much one has contributed towards "real" science.

So yes, one can argue that this value of credit should be equal among the projects.

I would even be willing to concede to the notion of cross-project parity.

However when DA and the self-appointed "credit police" continuously attack the projects that "pay" more credit than the norm and blatently ignore those projects that grant less credit, it is impossible to give any credibility to this crusade.

Case in point: When DA approached QMC and practically threatened them that if they did not reduce their credits they would be adjusted via the stat sites. QMC quickly did what they were told. Did DA approach any projects that grant sub-par credits, like Spinhenge@home? Well I'm still waiting on that one.

It is quite possible that the BOINC Community would adopt the cross-project parity campaign with open arms if all projects were treated equally. Until then participants, like myself, that have and continue to be alienated (no pun intended) by DA and the "credit police" will continue to be vocally opposed to the notion....

It bothers us. Any real solution has to include those projects as well.

Ok then...why haven't DA, yourself, or any other member of the "credit police" attack projects that are sub-par to the norm?

I have seen countless threads across BOINC projects from the CP screaming "FOUL" your credits are too high!! Not once, have I ever seen a thread from this same group crying "FOUL" your credits are too low!!

This is NOT Cross-project parity...and if your going to see any type of success ALL projects need to be adressed with the same passion.