Well, I don't pay too much attention to credits normally - I join projects for the science, but I do enjoy a good fat bunch of cobblestones when I get it. But this seems strange enough for me to want to give my opionion about it.
To make it clear, I am very much for giving out fair credit between projects. We had the same "problem" over at Einstein about a year ago, that we were getting too much credit (though probably less than what Milky Way was giving crunchers until the fix). Even then I was in favor of lowering credits to get closer to what SETI was giving and my opionion has not changed. Let credits be something that can be compared, and try to give all projects a fair chance of attracting volunteers.
Still, I'm not happy with the current situation. Give us less credits per WU, so we get the same as crunchers at SETI or Einstein - fine with me. But this "cap" is, in my eyes, a bad idea to say the very least. To me that is punishing people with fast boxes, and let's face it - those are the ones that get most work done for science. With the credit scheme we have now, my cute little Core Duo laptop would probably make the same amount of credit as my brand-new quadcore desktop - although it only has rougly 1/4 the power. Hell, I could attach my old Acer with the Celeron CPU and would probably get way more credit, compared to faster crunchers, than the speed of that box suggests. What's next? If we are still getting too much credit, would you lower the cap so far that the faster boxes reach it in the time it takes to go for the first cup of coffee in the morning after switching on the computer? I might be exaggerating but you get my point: People who only go after credits would consider much of their work "wasted" (and probably decrease res share, which would be bad for science) and even for those crunchers who, like me, see the credits as merely a nice little extra, it is kinda demotivating. And there are faster comps out there than mine, much as I hate to admit it ;-) take Xeons alone.
That said, I want to make clear that I have no intention of leaving this project any time soon and I want to express my solidarity to the project staff, who seem to have done a very good job so far. My comment on crediting is meant as constructive criticism and I hope it comes across as such.

Greetings,
Annika

The optimized app is freely available. It's not fair to the general boinc community if the optimized app is so much faster that those users will get so much credit. If you feel this strongly, why not just get the optimized app?

Thanks to whoever changed the front page news item... That was very responsible of you...

Guess I'm blind cause I still don't see you saying that in that thread or anything else in the thread that would pertain to this matter really ....

You can call what he is doing whatever you like, Bending the Rules, Ahead of the Curve & even admire him for his Intelligence but in the end it is nothing more than Outright Blatant Cheating & in the same Lofty Class as the Notoriously Ugly Wate Incident of some time ago.

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.

Go into the BOINCstat statistics for the users with most credits and see how many of the top users are university-based for Einstein.

... There are many more who crunch for the credits than those who do it only for the science and they are usually the ones who have the large farms....

I think this is very debatable and incorrect.

The overwhelming majority do not care for credits. The overwhelming majority, 300,000+ users, never read any of the fora, never post. That they may monitor credits with their BOINC Manager is then something done as an intellectual exercise or as game/race amongst themselves not as is discussed-without-end by the same credit-hungry that tend to post the same whines in all the fora of all the projects.

The largest, so-termed server-farms, mostly seem to be Einstein project-based and most certainly do not do calculations for credit as they only do Einstein calculations. As for others... they may do many calculations, they may have a significant percentage of the work calculated, but they are in the extreme minority when viewed as a percentage of users.

If they leave... so what? There will still be 300,000+ users doing calculations with more than 300,000 computers connected. Perhaps some projects will see a slow-down in calculations but the work will still be completed.

That's right. But I don't want to discuss to death ;-)
I only find curious (stupid?) that for the same amount of work you get x from one project, y from another and z from another.
It's as curious as you have three guys doing the same job in the same company. The first like white shirts and he gets $50,000 pert year, the second $60,000 because of its blue shirts and the third $70,000 because of its green shirts.
Not very constructive. 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

Oh yes, we have to. Its not like everyone had the same computer....

Fast or slow computers, the ratio remains the same.

Not many complained about getting shorted credit before the optimizations. So why gripe now when the credit is rougly the same as it was then. The wu's were cut down to 1/3 and the credit 1/3(approx.).

i just hope that you don't based lowering credits on the stats of http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/get_cpcs.php cuz that data is flawed wich has already been proven to be fact.

However i agree that credit was to low ... errr.. hmmm ... ok a bit to high.
Was fun while it lasted :P

welp time to move again :(