We are all going to be in trouble soon.

Should we start a PANIC thread?

yep it says o results ready to send.

Is anybody sharing this with Travis?

Still no work. (:-(

Still still no work - I hope Travis didn't take a long weekend off snowboarding (rueful smile).

It wouldn't be quite so bad when this happens if the queues were a tad higher -- hint hint.

Decide to spend the day doing an Astropulse, and come back with a coffee to see a stack of MW and the rude message you cant have more than 20 at once you greedy sod.

That's your imagination at work. You can't have more than 5 you greedy sod. But it's better than having some other problem.

It's OK, we'll settle for 8 ;)

The scientific credibility of Milkway@Home would be well served by explicitly posting the names of the Principal Investigators (the professors), their affiliations, and an acknowledgment to the NSF (including grant number) on the project home page.

...

Best regards,
EigenState

No John. Jeff and the many others are right.

You keep repeating and repeating that there is "the problem". Yet you have not proved it. You haven’t even tried to refute many of the explanations that have been presented here. You just repeat your mantra, or you invoke the “authority” of the founders. That’s not an argument. That’s sophistry.

Ever hear the phrase: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”? Words for an engineer to live by.

If there are no untoward consequences of something, there is no problem, no matter how many times you keep saying there is. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so.

We have shown you that the only thing you've described as a possible consequence - credits inflation - isn't happening. Numerous posters here have given various good reasons why it’s not happening, which you have failed to rebut.

No untoward consequences equals no problem. So face it. Since there are no untoward consequences, THERE IS NO PROBLEM! It’s not rational to go around obsessing about an imaginary “problem” that has no untoward consequences.

Nothing needs to be fixed. No harm of any consequence is being done. You haven't proved otherwise.

There is no credits problem.

So stop saying there is. And leave people alone. Go find something to fix that’s actually causing harm.

This is what happens when you "take the bait". Drop this loser and find a better way to waste our time.

Voltron

No, it is just reversing the side on a stupid argument that I am tired of getting. BOINC is SUPPOSED to work such that a particular host gets the same credit per hour no matter which project it is working on. People that say stop complaining about something that is not correct are in the wrong.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Just stop already............You don't like the credits given here...

Go somewhere else!

Since this is a problem affecting the entirety of BOINC, NO.

John, John. Still the same old sophistry. Last year you ignored the key issue (wrongfully recognizing effort rather than achievement) and you are still ignoring it. And you are also still peddling an imaginary problem (so-called "credit inflation") that has not happened and never will (as nicely understandable from Thunder's posting). If "credit inflation" were a real issue, all those below-average projects would be starving. They're not. So please call off your self-appointed PC credit police. You've harmed SETI. Isn't that enough? Leave the other projects alone!

Your claim that being paid for results instead of effort is what every gets is just plain wrong.

I and everyone I know gets paid for effort. I get paid twice a month, and the amount of the check does not vary depending on the number of lines of code that I got written. A couple of examples why (at least in my industry) pay for meeting a performance goal is an extremely bad idea. Occasionally, I can use a tool that writes 10,000 lines of code in 5 minutes. At the other extreme, sometimes the research takes so much time that two of us spent 6 months figuring out how to write 50 lines of code because of the lack of documentation on the system we were trying to work around. Just try codifying that as other than pay for effort please. Another example is from "Dilbert" where the PHB tells the programmers that pay is going to be based on the number of bugs fixed - Wally states "I am going to go write me a mini-van." Another example of why in some cases pay for results is not a great idea.

Another example comes from the summer I spent working construction. My pay was hourly for that job. One of the tasks for the landscaping crew was to dig holes in particular places. On that particular jobsite most of the holes were filled with a fairly soft rock (but still rock) that could be broken up slowly with a pickax or a digging bar. However, that took about an hour for a hole one foot on a side and a foot and a half deep. On the few occasions where the company rented a jackhammer for other reasons and there was some time left before it was returned, the landscaping crew got to use it. This changed the time from an hour to about 5 minutes for the same hole. However, my pay stayed the saem. Again pay based on effort.

The only two classes of people that I can think of whose pay is based almost exclusively on results are Piecework workers and Salesmen on commission. Everyone else has much of their pay based on effort.

Admittedly raises are based on overall effectiveness - but that is similar to having better hardware.

Sorry, I do NOT believe that either you or Jeff is correct, and I certainly do not know that you are correct. If that were the case, there would not be a discussion.

Certainly, you can pick based on scientific value. What you are saying is that you are selecting based on how many credits per hour you are granted (how much the project values you). Having projects grant whatever they feel like is a way to have an inflationary race:

Project 1 needs more participants so it raises the credits granted.
Now project 2 does the same.
Now back to project 1...

I do not see this as a good scenario, but apparently you do.