I raised the amount of time WUs were being kept on the server to check out the results and make sure the WUs were correct.

And what have you found so far?

Again, if the result is valid, then so is the credit. And limiting the credit for a valid result is not being fair and equal.

How am i supposed to do this? i have no more access to his source code than you do.

It is your project is it not? Ask him for the code, and review it. But better yet, just do what you say you are already doing, review the returned result for validity. If it is valid, then again, the credit is valid. Period.

I agree 100%, FULL credit should be given to valid results, no matter how fast it is getting done, by whomever and whatever. Period.

OK, so I ask that either you or zeitgeistmovie to define 'Full Credit'.

Alinator

The same credit I would get, if I had crunched that particular w/u, even if my box took 5 hours to crunch verses a couple of minutes.
That might sound crazy but, it's the same work isn't it?
Optimizations RULE.. :D
After all, even before this latest rubish, it still took twice as long for a Windows O.S. machine to crunch the same job as a Linux O.S. box. That's why my boxes dual boot Linux now.
That's a difference in optimization. Were do we draw the line?
Should I be credit punished because my Linux app from MW goes twice as fast as my Windows MW app?
NO.
Should others be punished because there app is faster than mine?
NO.

I can't get a good read on timings for comparable tasks due to the quorum of 1 and that they are purged so fast, but my view is that the credit awarded should be equal to the slower application, just that the faster application got it done quicker. Thus, if the slower ("stock") application was to get 200 credits for 4 hours of work, if his faster application turned back in the same results in 10 minutes, then he should get 200 credits, no more, no less...

Hmmm...

AFAIK, Travis set the purger back to ~1 day after reporting, so that shouldn't be an issue ATM.

As far as rates, The stock MW app on a T2400 is paying about the same ballpark rate as the SSE3 vesion of the Windows Kan v8x port on SAH and the R3 power app on EAH did.

Alinator

I agree 100%, FULL credit should be given to valid results, no matter how fast it is getting done, by whomever and whatever. Period.

OK, so I ask that either you or zeitgeistmovie to define 'Full Credit'.

Alinator

The same credit I would get, if I had crunched that particular w/u, even if my box took 5 hours to crunch verses a couple of minutes.
That might sound crazy but, it's the same work isn't it?
Optimizations RULE.. :D
After all, even before this latest rubish, it still took twice as long for a Windows O.S. machine to crunch the same job as a Linux O.S. box. That's why my boxes dual boot Linux now.
That's a difference in optimization. Were do we draw the line?
Should I be credit punished because my Linux app from MW goes twice as fast as my Windows MW app?
NO.
Should others be punished because there app is faster than mine?
NO.

Ok, then isn't your last statement exactly what I said here?

The point is that the Credit Anarchists are saying the basis should be set to whatever anyone feels like setting it to.

The Kredit Kops are saying, no the basis should be set to what a plain vanilla math version of the app would result in using BM-T scoring calibrated to the specifications of the reference computer, since that is the way the Cobblestone is defined, period.

Alinator

Since the Majority of People want Crunch to get full Credit for his Wu's & even I'm not against it really & the Project doesn't want to appear to be giving out an excessive amount of credit which it would be if it starts giving out 2000+ Credits Per Core Per Hour to somebody whether they deserved it or not then there is only 1 solution.

Cut the Credits accordingly so Crunch3r can get say 30 to 40 Credits Per Hour off 1 Core and cut the Credits then for the rest of us down to about 1.5 to 2 Credits Per Hour Per Core since we are doing the Wu's about 20 Times slower & the Credits given would reflect that.

That way Crunch3r would still be getting way more than everybody else & the rest of us would be getting what we deserve too in accordance with Crunch3r's new standard of excellence, that should make Crunch3r happy so problem solved ... :)

so problem solved ... :)

My personal favorite:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

(beware naughty language)

---

Since the Majority of People want Crunch to get full Credit for his Wu's & even I'm not against it really & the Project doesn't want to appear to be giving out an excessive amount of credit which it would be if it starts giving out 2000+ Credits Per Core Per Hour to somebody whether they deserved it or not then there is only 1 solution.

Cut the Credits accordingly so Crunch3r can get say 30 to 40 Credits Per Hour off 1 Core and cut the Credits then for the rest of us down to about 1.5 to 2 Credits Per Hour Per Core since we are doing the Wu's about 20 Times slower & the Credits given would reflect that.

That way Crunch 3r would still be getting way more than everybody else & the rest of us would be getting what we deserve too in accordance with Crunch3r new standard of excellence, that should make Crunch3r happy so problem solved ... :)

As long as the project sets the basis for the rest of us according to the definition, then Crunch3r would still be blowing us away with his app, since he would be doing, say for the sake of argument, 25 tasks on his to every one which was run on an equivalent platform.

That won't be making some people happy, but it would be within the rules of the BOINC credit system, therefore no one would really have a legitimate beef about it.

How much more of a premium should someone get for their 'excellence'?

The difference is that the 'Kredit Kop' way doesn't trash the projects parity with the other projects, since the credit was based on work and not apparent power.

Alinator

Since the Majority of People want Crunch to get full Credit for his Wu's & even I'm not against it really & the Project doesn't want to appear to be giving out an excessive amount of credit which it would be if it starts giving out 2000+ Credits Per Core Per Hour to somebody whether they deserved it or not then there is only 1 solution.

Cut the Credits accordingly so Crunch3r can get say 30 to 40 Credits Per Hour off 1 Core and cut the Credits then for the rest of us down to about 1.5 to 2 Credits Per Hour Per Core since we are doing the Wu's about 20 Times slower & the Credits given would reflect that.

That way Crunch 3r would still be getting way more than everybody else & the rest of us would be getting what we deserve too in accordance with Crunch3r's new standard of excellence, that should make Crunch3r happy so problem solved ... :)

As long as the project sets the basis for the rest of us according to the definition, then Crunch3r would still be blowing us away with his app, since he would be doing, say for the sake of argument, 25 tasks on his to every one which was run on an equivalent platform.

That won't be making some people happy, but it would be within the rules of the BOINC credit system, therefore no one would really have a legitimate beef about it.

How much more of a premium should someone get for their 'excellence'?

The difference is that the 'Kredit Kop' way doesn't trash the projects parity with the other projects, since the credit was based on work and not apparent power.

Alinator

If the argument continues then thats what will happen in the end because Travis probably doesn't have time for all of this. His time could be better spent on other things I'm sure rather than reading/answering the same questions/responses over and over ...

I agree 100%, FULL credit should be given to valid results, no matter how fast it is getting done, by whomever and whatever. Period.

OK, so I ask that either you or zeitgeistmovie to define 'Full Credit'.

Alinator

The same credit I would get, if I had crunched that particular w/u, even if my box took 5 hours to crunch verses a couple of minutes.
That might sound crazy but, it's the same work isn't it?
Optimizations RULE.. :D
After all, even before this latest rubish, it still took twice as long for a Windows O.S. machine to crunch the same job as a Linux O.S. box. That's why my boxes dual boot Linux now.
That's a difference in optimization. Were do we draw the line?
Should I be credit punished because my Linux app from MW goes twice as fast as my Windows MW app?
NO.
Should others be punished because there app is faster than mine?
NO.

Ok, then isn't your last statement exactly what I said here?

The point is that the Credit Anarchists are saying the basis should be set to whatever anyone feels like setting it to.

The Kredit Kops are saying, no the basis should be set to what a plain vanilla math version of the app would result in using BM-T scoring calibrated to the specifications of the reference computer, since that is the way the Cobblestone is defined, period.

Alinator

Please don't take an offense to this but, I failed to see the relevance between my post, and the post you suggested, I think. Other than the forest, heading for an oak tree. ;) :D
Or did I?
That just reminded me how much I missed downhill skiing.
Watch out for that tree! LOL. That probably explains it.

My personal favorite:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

(beware naughty language)

Yeah, that sort of sums us up...

If you remove the word 'total' from that pic, then it applies in varying degrees to everyone who posted in this and the previous (locked) thread - if they (I!) did it out of irritation, annoyance or anger. ;)

Regards
Rod

I see it like this. A farmer hires some people to pick corn by hand and tells them he'll pay so much a bushel. After a while a guy comes in with a real sharp knife and starts to cut corn faster than the rest. The other workers don't think it's fair and demand sharp knifes also. The farmer can go get knifes or force the guy with the knife to pick while on his knees. Or he can tell the other workers to get their own knifes if they want to pick faster. Now at this point the guy with the knife is happy. Now another guy comes in with a big machine that picks 20 times as much corn as the rest of them. The farmer is happy his corn is going to market. The other workers aren't so happy although, they are still being paid the same as they were in the beggining. So either the workers made a mistake taking the job since apparently they weren't going to make enough to feed their families in the first place or they are just jealous of the man who has the faster machine. If the latter is true, then they should probably just go back to work and be glad they have a job.

OK, so I ask that either you or zeitgeistmovie to define 'Full Credit'.

Alinator

That is simple.

If I get 1 (w)(of anything) for doing 1 (t)(of anything) Then c=w*t

so assume I only do 1 of w in 1 time slot - c=1*1 or 1

if I do 50 of p in 1 time slot then c=50*1 or 50

if I can figure out a way to accomplish 5,000,000 in the same time slot

then c=5,000,000*1 or 5,000,000

now, what was your question?

How much more of a premium should someone get for their 'excellence'?

He is not getting a premium he is receiving the same as everyone else, he is just doing it faster. A premium would be if he was getting ANYTHING above 1 for doing 1, he is not.

What is full credit? Full credit is simply full credit for the work done. Who cares how fast it is done, as long as it is done correctly. You simply can not be that dense.


Lets take this a step further, I have no idea what you do for a living, but lets assume that you assemble gizmo's, and you get paid $4.5 for each gizmo you assemble.
One night you get bored so you develop a way to assemble 50 gizmo's in an hour, and the next day you put it to use. About a week or two later one of your co-workers complain to the boss and say- you know, I give up, that Alienator has been putting gizmo's together faster than me and I think he is cheating and it is unfair. So the boss now sides with the co-worker and decides that he will allow you to still assemble the gizmo's at the speed that you can assemble them, but now is his going to limit the pay he will pay you. The company is still going to benefit from you assembling these gismo's but you will be paid less per gizmo because you are just too fast.
How about your real job, your boss comes to you and now tells you that he is going to reduce your pay because you are too productive. Outragouse! You should be mad, and you have the right to be mad.

Since the Majority of People want Crunch to get full Credit for his Wu's & even I'm not against it really & the Project doesn't want to appear to be giving out an excessive amount of credit which it would be if it starts giving out 2000+ Credits Per Core Per Hour to somebody whether they deserved it or not then there is only 1 solution.

Cut the Credits accordingly so Crunch3r can get say 30 to 40 Credits Per Hour off 1 Core and cut the Credits then for the rest of us down to about 1.5 to 2 Credits Per Hour Per Core since we are doing the Wu's about 20 Times slower & the Credits given would reflect that.

That way Crunch3r would still be getting way more than everybody else & the rest of us would be getting what we deserve too in accordance with Crunch3r's new standard of excellence, that should make Crunch3r happy so problem solved ... :)

So, because we have 1 person that can do more work and faster work than the rest of us, everyone gets cut? This sounds socialistic to me. Just give what is deserved. Plain and simple. If a host can produce more than another host, then so what. Fair? Yes. Limiting everyone or cutting everyone's pay fair, not fair.
And who really cares what the credit cops have to say about it - as the rulers of BOINC have already come out and said that optimized apps can get higher credit.

Complaints are like opinions, everybody has some.
A lesson from Kindergarten, play along or go play somewhere else.
I'm sure I will here about this, some just never learn to play well with others. My best friend was buried today and the same was seen. It's no wonder that ET will not visit us (besides the fact that we have to kill each other, just because...).

This is absolutely ridiculous. I understand both points of view but...
How is more efficient software any different from hardware? If someone can return a million VALID results a minute what is the difference if they are using highly optimised hand written code on a 286 or big freaking blue to do it? Valid results are valid results are valid results etc.

You keep saying it will make your project look bad.
LOL, I think that about says it all right there.

We are all on the same team here! Remember?!?
I thought the point of the project was the science not pandering to DA. What kinda threats does he make to cause people to act so illogically anyway?
MW either is open source or it isn't.
If it is, how can you ethically say one persons contribution is worth less per valid result than another's?

Honestly I have seen the word fair thrown around alot here lately. I think perhaps many need to reexamine exactly what that word is supposed to mean. Fair dosen't mean every kid in class gets strait A's so as not to get their feelings hurt.

P.S.
I love the threat to reduce everyone's credit to make crunch3r's app's cr/hr meet parity. That alone should show how patently rediculous this whole thing is.

---

It's really not uncommon in the real world to do what Travis is trying to do especially when there some competition involved & nobody needs to say that theres no competition in the BOINC Projects either, that it's all for the Science ...

NASCAR does it, each model/brand of car has it's own set of rules to keep the field as level as possible, at least they used to anyway but I'm not to sure about the new COT Car their using this Year. They also place HP Limits for each Brand of engine & if 1 gets to far ahead of another in HP then their not hesitant to reduce the HP of that Brand to try & level the Playing Field.

The Sport of Drag Racing does it too with certain Types of Racing, giving 1 Car an advantage at the start line to negate a faster cars advantage over another car.
There may be other Sports or Events where they do this sort of thing too but can't think of any at the moment.

Anyway I just brought it up because in both cases it's a case of impeding progress I think, sure you can make your car faster, but we're going to give the slower car an advantage to keep the playing field level.

So it happens out there in the real world & is really no different than what Travis is trying to do here I think ... IMO

This is absolutely ridiculous. I understand both points of view but...
How is more efficient software any different from hardware? If someone can return a million VALID results a minute what is the difference if they are using highly optimised hand written code on a 286 or big freaking blue to do it? Valid results are valid results are valid results etc.

the problem is that you might be able to buy the latter one, but never be able to get hands on to the first - simply because it's not all about money;)

You keep saying it will make your project look bad.
LOL, I think that about says it all right there.

it tells about lost perspectives - if you try to hide amoung those mediocre ones, you might avoid looking bad - but you'll never ever look great.

Fair dosen't mean every kid in class gets strait A's so as not to get their feelings hurt.

talking about those A-grades - someone comes up to u and offers an optimyzed version of your product beeing 20 times cheaper. you'll find anyone not kicking your aSS bigtime when you go fire instead of hire?

frank.

NASCAR does it, each model/brand of car has it's own set of rules to keep the field as level as possible, at least they used to anyway but I'm not to sure about the new COT Car their using this Year. They also place HP Limits for each Brand of engine & if 1 gets to far ahead of another in HP then their not hesitant to reduce the HP of that Brand to try & level the Playing Field.

That doesn't mean it's the right thing. When Nascar stared it didn't have limits. They started getting picky in the early 70's when Plymouth won almost everything.

The Sport of Drag Racing does it too with certain Types of Racing, giving 1 Car an advantage at the start line to negate a faster cars advantage over another car.

This onlt applies to one style of drag racing, not all. And it is so they come across the finish line at the same time. Neither car gains from it.

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

NASCAR does it, each model/brand of car has it's own set of rules to keep the field as level as possible, at least they used to anyway but I'm not to sure about the new COT Car their using this Year. They also place HP Limits for each Brand of engine & if 1 gets to far ahead of another in HP then their not hesitant to reduce the HP of that Brand to try & level the Playing Field.

That doesn't mean it's the right thing. When Nascar stared it didn't have limits. They started getting picky in the early 70's when Plymouth won almost everything.

The Sport of Drag Racing does it too with certain Types of Racing, giving 1 Car an advantage at the start line to negate a faster cars advantage over another car.

This onlt applies to one style of drag racing, not all. And it is so they come across the finish line at the same time. Neither car gains from it.

Your missing the whole point of the Post & that was just to point out that impeding progress is done in other walks of life too whether it be right or wrong or when or how it's done ... :)

No PB, you're missing the point.
Unlimited sportsman, top fuel etc ain't bracket racing.