Psst, don't speak too loud... Last time we ran out of WUs immediately after stating all was soooo quiet. *grin*

Imho, its too much...

2.17 was more than average on my hosts

Just my 2 cents...

You were outvoted 50 to 1 !

Thats life... I can live with that. :)

Who am I to complain about people that are complaining about too little credits here. Just because my calculator keeps telling me that Milkyway is granting 50% more credits than ABC or Cosmo (with 4 cr. per wu), I do know nonetheless that it is the project admins decision how much credits are granted. If I dont like the decision, i have to go somewhere else. If I dont believe the guys that say that Milkyway isnt granting more than the other high credit projects (which can be easily checked), its still MY problem. If I think that those people are talking rubbish who are saying that increasing the credits again saved this project, exactly: Still MY problem...

most people agree that the granted credit is way too high for the project by a factor of 3.

Now you're saying that most people were wrong...

Please feel free to keep complaining about credit on the forums and we'll eventually get it right. :)

;) thats what i'm doing...

Well, thanks to 6.5 cr., I was able to reach my personal project milestone of 10k in no time. Funny that the last wu I needed to reach 10k was one with "only" 2.17 cr.

At other projects I am doing 3x the ((scientific)) work for 10k.

Well, now I can focus on other projects again, like WCG atm, where I can do exactly that...

Now wait, I am confused. If the pay is too high, you can always set your prefs to 1..

But first - you state "Thats life... I can live with that. :)

Who am I to complain about people that are complaining about too little credits here."

Then you say - "thats what i'm doing..." in response to the statement -

Please feel free to keep complaining about credit on the forums and we'll eventually get it right. :)

Will you figure it out ? you are making even me dizzy..

There should be a BOINC server option that lets the participant choose the amount of credit he should get.

100% of the project default
75% of the project default
50% or the project default
1-1 1 credit = 1 WU (so they can at least see how many WU's they have crunched)

and for the halo heads

.001% or just 0000 - since credit is not a big issue to them - they can select the 000 option and feel at home.

Just wanted to make a point, that there are even people willing to help without credits above average (there are also a few projects I would support without any credits) - contrary to the people who posted "Byebye" right after the granted credits had been decreased. Thats poor.

No that is not poor. That is free choice. You have the right to support whatever project you want according to your own wishes and desires. We have that right as well. If I do not like the way a project is being run I have the right to say bye and move my crunchers to another project. They are, after all, my crunchers. I prefer to have a dialog with the project admins first, but that is by my choice. Those who posted bye and left were also exercising their right to do so. I do not think any less of them for doing so and are appalled that you do.

You're right Sarge! Its simply MY opinion that such BEHAVIOUR is poor.

Better?

Now I'm really off... ;)

Best, Shai!

Well look @ the Bright Side of it SG, now you'll be able to devote more of your time Crusading @ some of the other Projects that in your Opinion give out to much Credit ... :)

If they leave... so what? There will still be 300,000+ users doing calculations with more than 300,000 computers connected.

While everyone here has a right to his/her opinion, I'm still waiting to hear from the admin. Lets face it it's their project and their not stupid, they know this credit thing will determine alot about the user/cruncher base of this project.
Then again they may feel this is not open for discussion.

And I would prefer see people interested in a project because of the subject instead of intereted by the local higher credits.

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

You need to look again. We hold number 1 in several projects that you failed to mention. As a matter of fact, we tend to spread ourselves around quite a bit, especially since Formula BOINC started. And how can you say that SETI gives more credits? That is a laugh for sure.

If the optimized app becomes the standard app and is issued to all platforms supported by the project, credit granted should IMO be based on using that (standard, optimized) app. Nothing unusual about that - it's been done elsewhere (like Einstein)

I yelped a bit a couple of weeks ago when it was mooted that credits should be reduced. That is because I am running a PPC Mac and it didn't get any optimisation in the last round of app updates. However, I subsequently looked at the figures again and I concede that 6.5 per result was too high. Trouble is, 2.17 is way too low. Somewhere around 4 would be reasonable I would think.

I think that 4.2 is a reasonable number.