My answer: I will use a different method to measure ourselves, that DA cannot influence. I will use MMs to do just that.Originally Posted by DrPop
So, this leads us to one question: What 'er we gonna do about it?
My answer: I will use a different method to measure ourselves, that DA cannot influence. I will use MMs to do just that.So, this leads us to one question: What 'er we gonna do about it?
Okay, maybe I'm missing something here, so slap me if I'm dumb.
Aren't MMs directly related to credit? And if DA can manipulate the credit schema, doesn't that directly effect MMs over all? I fail to see how the use of MMs would not be effected as an overall measure and how the use of MMs could be something that DA has no affect over.
Yo-
Actually, I think you are both right. Although DA has a direct influence of just how much credit you will get, you need to consider that it will effect all of us therefore we be looking at a somewhat different playing field that will get us longer to get to our to our target but it will take the same time for everybody else as well. What really hurts is that those ahead of you got there relatively easy to date only and from here on we are all on the same playing field. For those that are ahead consider yourself lucky and for those that are behind consider it as bad luck. That statement by the way is not mine but an interpretation of what DA is doing.
What I REALLY don't get is, Why does he even care? So what if projects are giving out credit at different rates for WUs.
I can only surmise, he has a vested interest in something and that changing the credit scheme is the only way to get to whatever it is he's striving for.
With that in mind, perhaps it's something like, he has a particular fondness for a project or two, or more even, that no one, or very few are actually crunching and that the reason no one is crunching them is because the credit is so low, no one wants to. This leaves him only one way to get his pet projects running again and that would be to lower the credit on everything else to the level of his pet projects. This way, it won't matter that people flock to Collatz, MW or PG any more, because he's managed to nerf them to get people to look in other directions.
I can see no other reason why he should care so much about it.
Yo-
MMs are not unaffected. In any project that has had its credit output changed over the course of the project (I'm betting this is a considerable amount), some people got their MM with "cheap" credits, and some got their MM with "expensive" credits. While I see where you're coming from, I don’t think MMs are immune to this credit madness! Which is very unfortunate ...
Credits and the ability to accumulate them, change within a project all the time, and that is *without* any manipulation by DA. Let's take SETI as an example. I made 500K with the stock app. Then opt apps were created. Then GPU apps were created. In this example, the people who came later got it easier than the early crowd. For another example, a project could add a different sub project that does not have the same ability to earn credits differently for a number of reasons (no GPU app available, only a sub-set of OSs supported, etc). The point is, things are always changing. You get your MMs as fast as you can, when you can, just to be sure. And usually early adopters are getting the short end of the stock with regard to credits and risk to wasted time.
Last edited by zombie67; 08-04-11 at 10:06 AM.
If I recall correctly, it's been posted that he wants to be sure it's not the credits that decide for a cruncher which projects to crunch. His focus is to have the decision always be based on the actual science as the only meaningful thing to use to determine where your resources should be allocated. He doesn't want projects to be able to "buy" resources by inflating the "credits" they hand out because it could lead to "inflation" where projects need to hand out more and more credit to attract the resources of the hard-core crunchers.
So instead, he works at a scheme to hand out less and less credit. Thereby causing the folks running farms for the sole purpose of credits to decide it's not even worth it to create all these extra resources, simply to help out whichever project is willing to hand over the most credits. So the personal farms go away, leading to less volunteer work being performed. A win-win situation if there ever was one.
Someone need to send that $%#@ a heated email 'splainin' things to him.
Yo-
You are right. If this guy can not see that if by my personal expense I add more machines to my farm I am helping the scientific community, than BOINC has no future. Perhaps he thinks we already have too many volunteers and he does not need any more for his pet project can not handle the volume. In this case, since he has the capability, the only thing he can do is reduce the credit for all until his pet project gets to be on the top. In either case, he is a looser for I can not see a new lap top user will replace my farm when I give it away as futile to crunch for such useless numbers that in effect only means something to those who are competing against each other and by doing so, increasing the input to the researchers.
If they wanted people to only crunch for the science, they never should have introduced credits or teams.
6r39 7r199
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
