Well, whoever followed the forum constantly should know that the credit limit was introduced as a measure against "cheating" apps like Crunch3r earlier did and made millions of credits with it without giving it to anyone else.
To that point it was pretty senseful to have such a limit, wasn't it?
Now, where anyone (who wants) can use a "official cheater"-app this limit should be senseless?

"cheater app" ? WTF ? There was no, and still is no cheater app.

The App that Crunch3r and Milk and others have OPTIMIZED are non other than optimized applications. Re-written to better return results faster.
How is this any different than any other project with any optimized code?

If optimized codes is going to be called cheater apps, then I suppose all those on SETI, and any other project that are using any app/program than those handed out by the the project are ALL considered cheaters.
Looks like you just called thousands of participants cheaters.

The App that Crunch3r and Milk and others have OPTIMIZED are non other than optimized applications. Re-written to better return results faster.
How is this any different than any other project with any optimized code?

If optimized codes is going to be called cheater apps, then I suppose all those on SETI, and any other project that are using any app/program than those handed out by the the project are ALL considered cheaters.
Looks like you just called thousands of participants cheaters.

The other sentiment I see cropping up from time to time is that most or all participants in this project who are using the faster app are "credit whores". I have also seen the suggestion that just merely doing the tasks with the slower application equates to "credit whoreness" because the credit rate is above that of other projects.

My reasons for being involved in this project are as follows:

• Astronomy project with a good goal (determining galaxy formation / merging events).
  
• No longer support SETI due to lack of progress on post-processing, continual struggles with servers, anti-AMD code (especially Astropulse) as well as seeing other worthy projects.
  
• I only participate in Physics / Astronomy related projects.
  
• Cosmology has had major problems for months now.
  
• LHC rarely has work.
  
• Windows users had a very large penalty (20-30%) vs. Linux users at Einstein up until only recently with the new "power users" (read: "optimized") application for Windows users.
  

I have started shutting my AMD system down at night, trying to conserve electricity. I could leave it up and running and try to process more Cosmology or Einstein tasks. I could bring my Intel system over here to try to run up my credits more, but I don't.

I'm tired of hearing that people that are protesting the credit rates here are doing so because they want things to be "fair to other projects". There might be a few that are protesting for that reason alone, but I'm willing to stick out my neck and say that most people just don't like being overtaken in the BOINC-wide standings more than they are concerned about whether or not a particular project has enough support.

I've stopped worrying about BOINC-wide standings. As they are presented today, they are meaningless. Even if every single project suddenly started giving out the exact same credit per CPU second as viewed by the charts at the stat sites, the BOINC-wide standings would still be meaningless due to the past history as well as the fact that INTRA-project parity doesn't exist in all projects.

I know what I have to say will be drowned out in the shouting between sides on this issue, but maybe someone will see it and start figuring out that these arguments over "cheating" and things not being "fair" could be eliminated by eliminating the concept that credits at one project should be the same as another. There is another way to handle the comparison for BOINC-wide standings, which is done by places like DC-Vault or Formula BOINC...

As always:

IMO, YMMV, etc, etc, etc...

"cheater app" ? WTF ? There was no, and still is no cheater app.
...
Looks like you just called thousands of participants cheaters.

Well, I didn't meant it that way.
I did not put the words within quotation marks without sense, you know?
If I would have called it really cheating then I wouldn't have used the marks.
It was meant as a "metaphor". That's all.

I hope you understand it now better.

---

Member of BOINC@Heidelberg and ATA!

My BOINCstats

I'm curious as to the % of total MW crunchers that are active on the forums. Is the greatest % of MW crunchers and production among the "silent majority"? While this is the case w/ Seti & Folding, it may not be the case here.

It's interesting to look at the dichotomy that emerges if one introduces economic considerations. No question that the current credit award methodology is broken for multiple reasons that have already been discussed. Fact is, if MW (or any DC project) had to PAY $$$ to the cruncher or issue IRS tax deduction slips for charitable contributions based on the current methodology, they would not want to do so as they'd end up dramatically overpaying for the least of amount of production resulting from slower machines. This equation in reality, is reversed of course; the project doesn't pay the volunteers...the volunteers make an investment into the project via. electricity, wear & tear, depreciation, opportunity-cost (cost vs. devoting those cpu cycles elsewhere) & in some cases, software (volunteer developers/optimizers).

Economically speaking, there should be an equilibrium of mutual benefit in the relationship between project & volunteer. The project would be inclined to balance the greatest return from it's "volunteer" resources w/ the best rewards (& least expense to volunteer) available to guarantee continuance. Pretty simple...greater production = greater value to project & compensated by greater reward to the worker. Unfortunately, this is not the case at the moment. Interestingly, in the attempt to appease the largest number of mid to upper-mid producers, the current system not only penalizes the most efficient worker using the opt aps, but also penalizes everyone using standard aps & therefore hits the lowest producers even harder.

What a great micro-example of labor economics that mirrors a similar debate in the recent US election. Fascinating!!! A person could actually use a DC computing project as an economic model for a thesis or dissertation research. Hummmm.......might just DO that myself ; > )

On 14 Nov 2008 at 15:36:33 UTC aendgraend wrote :

...Our Team recommends it's Members to stop Crunching MW immediately...

Now, more than three days later, please look at statistic sites like these:

http://www.boincsynergy.com/stats/teams.php?project=mwah
http://boincstats.com/stats/team_graph.php?pr=milkyway&id=9
http://www.allprojectstats.com/showteam.php?projekt=61&id=9

The SETI.Germany "boycott" is a big fake !!!

---

On 14 Nov 2008 at 15:36:33 UTC aendgraend wrote :

...Our Team recommends it's Members to stop Crunching MW immediately...

Now, more than three days later, please look at statistic sites like these:

The SETI.Germany "boycott" is a big fake !!!

looks like SETI GERMANY is crunching more and more for this project.

lonesome DON SAENGER on an impossible mission.

As an open source project, it's a level playing field & anyone can decide to improve the ap if they have the skills...w/ NO OBLIGATION to anyone else. If the project deems the open-source status to no longer be advantageous or counter-productive, they can always go "closed-source". This is a responsibility of the project, not the volunteer community.

The myriad of accusations, demands and generally unprofessional comments extended at developers and Admin the past few months would not ingratiate these folks to provide much of anything in this atmosphere of bitterness. Certainly, Admin is obliged to mission-critical needs, but why in the world after witnessing all of this, would any capable coder WANT to provide services after seeing the responses? They'd be better off building their uber-ap, staying anonymous & NOT sharing w/ the project, much to the loss of the project & not in the true spirt of open-source design.

If abused, project forums can present a significant liability to the project and an open source atmosphere. Moreover, if these discussion forums present too much consternation that detracts from project resources, Admin could always decide to do away w/ them and relegate communication to info sharing re: progress and issues reporting. All other discussion could easily be relegated to individual team forums. It's their project after all. Hopefully, this will not happen & cooler heads will prevail w/ sensible solutions to current issues.

Just some things to think about before drawing lines in the sand......

... MW (or any DC project) had to PAY $$$ to the cruncher or issue IRS tax deduction slips for charitable contributions based on the current methodology,...

Doesn't apply to the just under 78% of us who do not live in The United States and still calculate for MilkyWay.

...the project doesn't pay the volunteers...

Rather defeats the definition of being a volunteer, doesn't it? If one is paid, then one is an employee.

I volunteer and have neither an expectation of being paid, nor any desire to be paid.

-ChinookFöhn

... MW (or any DC project) had to PAY $$$ to the cruncher or issue IRS tax deduction slips for charitable contributions based on the current methodology,...

Doesn't apply to the just under 78% of us who do not live in The United States and still calculate for MilkyWay.

...the project doesn't pay the volunteers...

Rather defeats the definition of being a volunteer, doesn't it? If one is paid, then one is an employee.

I volunteer and have neither an expectation of being paid, nor any desire to be paid.

-ChinookFöhn

Of course : > )
My point is that the "valuation" of work & obligations would be different if they were required to compensate. Why should one's work be valued less just because there's no direct cost involved to a party? It might be "human nature", but it doesn't mean it's right ; > )

On 14 Nov 2008 at 15:36:33 UTC aendgraend wrote :

...Our Team recommends it's Members to stop Crunching MW immediately...

Now, more than three days later, please look at statistic sites like these:

http://www.boincsynergy.com/stats/teams.php?project=mwah
http://boincstats.com/stats/team_graph.php?pr=milkyway&id=9
http://www.allprojectstats.com/showteam.php?projekt=61&id=9

The SETI.Germany "boycott" is a big fake !!!

Ha ha.

Tell me how to force volunteers without breaking their free will and without making them leave the team, I will do. This "boycott" is a recommendation. You can read this in the first posting in this thread (or even in the few words you quoted), if you don't believe me. Our Team Members are free to follow this recommendation and a lot of them did.

But I'm wasting my time, you will never get my point, you just see the tons of credit granted to your account. Of course, you are free to do so but I am free to complain about it.

Well I'm glad you meant some different babble and appreciate you voiced it.

But regarding the credit limit's sense I think your wrong. Milksop somewhere posted two workarounds. And they are being used. So this even furthers the unbalance, as the way to manipulate the client is only usable by very few. the other way is easier but way less effective.
So this limit didn't at all hit its target.

Besides that I think it was wrong to introduce this limit because crunch3r actually produced that lot more of science. If the project didn't want it they should have prohibited the use of his appl.
That would have been very understandable, as he was not prepared to share it with all other crunchers. But as long as they wanted to keep him in they should have paid the full price.

---

Dragons can fly because they don't fit into pirate ships!

On 14 Nov 2008 at 15:36:33 UTC aendgraend wrote :

...Our Team recommends it's Members to stop Crunching MW immediately...

Now, more than three days later, please look at statistic sites like these:

http://www.boincsynergy.com/stats/teams.php?project=mwah
http://boincstats.com/stats/team_graph.php?pr=milkyway&id=9
http://www.allprojectstats.com/showteam.php?projekt=61&id=9

The SETI.Germany "boycott" is a big fake !!!

Yea, I love it - a boycott and production goes up - LOVE IT!

On 14 Nov 2008 at 15:36:33 UTC aendgraend wrote :

...Our Team recommends it's Members to stop Crunching MW immediately...

Now, more than three days later, please look at statistic sites like these:

http://www.boincsynergy.com/stats/teams.php?project=mwah
http://boincstats.com/stats/team_graph.php?pr=milkyway&id=9
http://www.allprojectstats.com/showteam.php?projekt=61&id=9

The SETI.Germany "boycott" is a big fake !!!

Ha ha.

Tell me how to force volunteers without breaking their free will and without making them leave the team, I will do. This "boycott" is a recommendation. You can read this in the first posting in this thread (or even in the few words you quoted), if you don't believe me. Our Team Members are free to follow this recommendation and a lot of them did.

But I'm wasting my time, you will never get my point, you just see the tons of credit granted to your account. Of course, you are free to do so but I am free to complain about it.

Ha ha ha, too.
The word "boycot" was used in the SETI.Germany board, see this thread in german: http://board.setigermany.de/showthread.php?p=75797#post75797

for example:

http://board.setigermany.de/showpost.php?p=76293&postcount=53
in english, translated by http://de.babelfish.yahoo.com : Our boycott does not seem somehow to function. The team output rises for four days rather on that it would decrease.

http://board.setigermany.de/showpost.php?p=75940&postcount=22
in english, translated by http://de.babelfish.yahoo.com : Is that now a reaction to our boycott or already stood before Aends post office on the HP?

and so far:
http://board.setigermany.de/showpost.php?p=75811&postcount=8
http://board.setigermany.de/showpost.php?p=75988&postcount=33
http://board.setigermany.de/showpost.php?p=76101&postcount=48
http://board.setigermany.de/showpost.php?p=76194&postcount=52

german - english
Boykott = boycott
Empfehlung = recommendation

---

Michael, das Boykott sind kaput?

HA! :p, all this crap for nothing!. Next time it might be wise to ask the team first before stating that a project will be abandoned.


Side note: The wu's in progress are up to 90k. Chruning out faster than before.

---

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

But regarding the credit limit's sense I think your wrong. Milksop somewhere posted two workarounds. And they are being used. So this even furthers the unbalance, as the way to manipulate the client is only usable by very few. the other way is easier but way less effective.

Having read that, I did a closer look at all Milksop's posts here on the board again, but couldn't find such information. I could have overreaded it, but I don't think so.
Can you please post a link to this "workaround" then? I don't want that everyone should be aware of that, but if he really posted it somewhere, I want to know (only for information if it's really true of course!), so PM it to me.
As far as it is really being used to avoid the credit limit, there couldn't be much people who use it, as the stats of MilkyWay don't show a significant difference anywhere.

Besides that I think it was wrong to introduce this limit because crunch3r actually produced that lot more of science. If the project didn't want it they should have prohibited the use of his appl.

Well, to be honest I'm wondering now why the project admins made the project OpenSource, as far as I see there is only a big mess and it seems they are not capable of handling it right.
Don't understand me wrong, I'm happy that the science is better now because some "outsiders" could improve the code, but in my eyes it's useless to make a project OpenSource when you can't deal with the consequences.
I'm still hoping that the release of the new app - hopefully really this week as announced - shuts some people's voices down. ;-)

---

Member of BOINC@Heidelberg and ATA!

My BOINCstats

Hello Michael,

http://www.boincsynergy.com/stats/teams.php?project=mwah
http://boincstats.com/stats/team_graph.php?pr=milkyway&id=9
http://www.allprojectstats.com/showteam.php?projekt=61&id=9
The SETI.Germany "boycott" is a big fake !!!

there is no boycott. Look at our stats. There are not enough WU for higher stats. :D

---

Constant dripping wears away the stone. :)

Well, to be honest I'm wondering now why the project admins made the project OpenSource, as far as I see there is only a big mess and it seems they are not capable of handling it right.
Don't understand me wrong, I'm happy that the science is better now because some "outsiders" could improve the code, but in my eyes it's useless to make a project OpenSource when you can't deal with the consequences.

I completely agree w/ you and eluded to same in my earlier post.
Since projects rely on the masses to crunch the data & in most cases, do not have massive budgets and large staff, it makes perfect sense to go Open Source and benefit from the skills of the volunteer community. Projects DO have overhead & a cost associated w/ data analysis.....therefore, any means of doing more work, quicker, has a direct financial impact & also impact's the viability of the project accomplishing it's goal. Having seen these types of contentious issues many times before, projects appear to underestimate the caveats associated & necessary to effectively operate as open source.

I don't think the issues are insurmountable, but at the same time I've yet to see a project have a clear "plan & process" to effectively manage it's open source aspect. The chaos here and @ other projects that have faced similar is to be expected if a policy is not clearly defined and followed.

Ha ha ha, too.
The word "boycot" was used in the SETI.Germany board, see this thread in german: http://board.setigermany.de/showthread.php?p=75797#post75797

for example:

http://board.setigermany.de/showpost.php?p=76293&postcount=53
in english, translated by http://de.babelfish.yahoo.com : Our boycott does not seem somehow to function. The team output rises for four days rather on that it would decrease.

http://board.setigermany.de/showpost.php?p=75940&postcount=22
in english, translated by http://de.babelfish.yahoo.com : Is that now a reaction to our boycott or already stood before Aends post office on the HP?

and so far:
http://board.setigermany.de/showpost.php?p=75811&postcount=8
http://board.setigermany.de/showpost.php?p=75988&postcount=33
http://board.setigermany.de/showpost.php?p=76101&postcount=48
http://board.setigermany.de/showpost.php?p=76194&postcount=52

german - english
Boykott = boycott
Empfehlung = recommendation

OK, I'm sorry, my mistake. It seems like I didn't make it clear enough for everybody. Maybe some are even too fussy, I don't know.

Anyway, let me explain:

1. Active SG-Board-Members were upset about the Credit situation at MW.
2. Various People agreed to boycott the project. The people, not the Team, got it?
3. The same people agreed to spread out a recommendation to all other team members, not to crunch MW until the Credits match BOINC-Standards again.

So for the TEAM it is a RECOMMENDATION to the volunteers (as we can and will not force them!).
But for the SINGLE PERSON, who stopped crunching MW, in fact it is a boycott.

That's why you may still see Credits coming to the SG-Account.

Ah, btw. I do see a decrease of credits/day.
http://de.boincstats.com/charts/chart_de_milkyway_object_new_teams_9.gif

Lets make it clear folks , lets say you are working in part time to three different employers and one of them want to pay you for your work 2 or 4 dollars more the hour than the others, would you say no?? Do you have really problem with it? sorry i can't understand you !