Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: Standardized Credits

  1. #1
    Zytozux
    Guest

    Standardized Credits

    Do you think standardized credits will ever happen? For example credits attached to a FLOP standard, or the length of time it takes a Pentium 4 to crunch a WU? I would love to fold some proteins or search for ET, but the credits for helping Black Hats crack passwords are just too good.

  2. #2
    Past Administrator
    Fire$torm's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 13th, 2010
    Location
    In the Big City
    Posts
    7,938

    Re: Standardized Credits

    Quote Originally Posted by Zytozux View Post
    Do you think standardized credits will ever happen? For example credits attached to a FLOP standard, or the length of time it takes a Pentium 4 to crunch a WU? I would love to fold some proteins or search for ET, but the credits for helping Black Hats crack passwords are just too good.
    That is what DA is trying to do with CreditNew. His method will severely diminish credits on GPU work to bring it inline with CPU credits ignoring the fact that GPUs do substantially more work then CPUs. Obviously DA's method does not sit well with GPU crunchers.

    Other then the above, it will never happen. As I have been told, most BOINC project admins are not even really aware what the other projects are doing. Nor are they aware of the conflict between DA and the GPU crunchers. And of those that are aware, some just do not care.


    Future Maker? Teensy 3.6

  3. #3
    Zytozux
    Guest

    Re: Standardized Credits

    Thanks for the response. I don't really have a problem with GPU's getttng more credit, because like you said, they do more work. I am mostly concerned about the wide credit range between projects like World Community Grid and Distributed Rainbow Tables. Getting 10k at DistRTgen takes 1 day, getting 10k at WCG takes 2 weeks. This chart is what I have an issue with mostly.

  4. #4
    Past Administrator
    Fire$torm's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 13th, 2010
    Location
    In the Big City
    Posts
    7,938

    Re: Standardized Credits

    Quote Originally Posted by Zytozux View Post
    Thanks for the response. I don't really have a problem with GPU's getttng more credit, because like you said, they do more work. I am mostly concerned about the wide credit range between projects like World Community Grid and Distributed Rainbow Tables. Getting 10k at DistRTgen takes 1 day, getting 10k at WCG takes 2 weeks. This chart is what I have an issue with mostly.
    Yeah, I looked at that one awhile back. Its just that is no BOINC wide communication specifically between projects. Maxwell once told me that sort of thing is common in academia, which is where most projects originated from. Basically they are snobs and the only work that matters is the stuff each professor is working on. The exception would be related research and then only when they wish to share......


    Future Maker? Teensy 3.6

  5. #5
    Diamond Member
    zombie67's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 24th, 2010
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    7,269

    Re: Standardized Credits

    Cross-project credit parity is impossible, for a number of well documented reasons. Adding together credits from different projects is like trying to sum toasters, miles per hour, and the color blue. The answer is meaningless.

    Rather than adding credits from different project together for a total (meaningless), I choose to measure myself with MegaMilestones. That method makes the credits that a particular project awards meaningless. To compete in the MM game, means getting to a particular milestone (say 10k) in as many projects as possible. You want more of that MM than the next guy. Sure that means you will focus on the high paying projects at first, because those will be the quickest to complete. But after you achieve the MM in those, you will eventually have to move on to the lower paying projects too, in order to get more MMs. Just like your competition. So it doesn't matter if a particular project pays high or low. It will take each person at that project, the same amount of work to hit the MM.

    Once you wrap your head around this, you quickly stop caring about the amount of credits that any particular project pays. It just doesn't matter any more.

    Edit: Oh yeah, and the MM measuring method applies to teams as easily as individuals. Who is #1? It really depends on how you measure it.
    Last edited by zombie67; 04-19-12 at 12:47 AM.
    "Don't confront me with my failures, I had not forgotten them" - Jackson Browne

    Avatar source


  6. #6
    Gold Member

    Join Date
    June 1st, 2011
    Location
    Terra Incognito
    Posts
    1,012

    Re: Standardized Credits

    I'm with zombie on this. Total credits doesn't make sense as you cannot compare credits across different projects. This incongruity between the definition of 'being the best' and the false comparability of project credits has led to horrible attempts to normalize credit. An example is DA's creditnew, which in my mind makes the problem worse as it seems to penalize faster pc's over slower ones.

    A better more accurate measure would be to compare overall average ranking of each person and team per project. You could easily give points based on percentile and then average them out over all active projects. This would make each project have equal competitive value regardless of how many credits they give. This could even be broken down into sub categories based on the type of project, for instance math vs bio-med. Or even best in nonactive projects.

    It seems to me that the stats sites have the power to redefine the definition of 'top team' or 'top user'. As long as total credit is the basis for competition instead of average ranking we'll always have the rush to the high paying projects. It forces teams who want to be competitive to constantly crunch for the high paying projects at the expense of the other projects.

    I wonder what Bok would have to say about this.

  7. #7
    Friend of SETI.USA
    Join Date
    November 15th, 2010
    Posts
    2,452

    Re: Standardized Credits

    Personally I don't think who has the most MM's or the Most Credit makes any Individual or Team #1 at anything since it's all worthless to begin with. If I put up 5 Million Credits at WCG like I've been trying to reach for the last many month's now & some one else put's up 5 Million Credits divided among 20 different somewhat meaningless Projects who really has done more. Sure the guy that hit 20 Projects gets 20 more MM's but if their some what meaningless Projects does it really matter.

    I gritted my Teeth when Bok came out with the MM Rankings & think they has done just as much to hurt the really Important Humanity Projects as DA has done with his constant fiddling with the Credits. I thought Jesus now I have to chase a bunch of Projects that have no real worth to keep up with the Jones. I halfheartedly did try to keep pace but eventually decided it just wasn't worth it anymore. I'll settle for running something that actually benefits humanity & let the other chase every Micky Mouse Project that Pop's up ...

  8. #8
    Platinum Member
    denim's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 1st, 2010
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    2,896

    Re: Standardized Credits

    Quote Originally Posted by zombie67 View Post
    Cross-project credit parity is impossible, for a number of well documented reasons. Adding together credits from different projects is like trying to sum toasters, miles per hour, and the color blue. The answer is meaningless.

    Rather than adding credits from different project together for a total (meaningless), I choose to measure myself with MegaMilestones. That method makes the credits that a particular project awards meaningless. To compete in the MM game, means getting to a particular milestone (say 10k) in as many projects as possible. You want more of that MM than the next guy. Sure that means you will focus on the high paying projects at first, because those will be the quickest to complete. But after you achieve the MM in those, you will eventually have to move on to the lower paying projects too, in order to get more MMs. Just like your competition. So it doesn't matter if a particular project pays high or low. It will take each person at that project, the same amount of work to hit the MM.

    Once you wrap your head around this, you quickly stop caring about the amount of credits that any particular project pays. It just doesn't matter any more.

    Edit: Oh yeah, and the MM measuring method applies to teams as easily as individuals. Who is #1? It really depends on how you measure it.

    This has got to be the funniest thing I have read in a month.

  9. #9
    Diamond Member
    zombie67's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 24th, 2010
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    7,269

    Re: Standardized Credits

    Quote Originally Posted by spingadus View Post
    A better more accurate measure would be to compare overall average ranking of each person and team per project. You could easily give points based on percentile and then average them out over all active projects. This would make each project have equal competitive value regardless of how many credits they give.
    FWIW, this is similar to what FormulaBoinc does at the team level. They just reset the competition every year. It could be adapted to the user level easily enough.
    "Don't confront me with my failures, I had not forgotten them" - Jackson Browne

    Avatar source


  10. #10
    Diamond Member
    zombie67's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 24th, 2010
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    7,269

    Re: Standardized Credits

    Quote Originally Posted by STE\/E View Post
    Personally I don't think who has the most MM's or the Most Credit makes any Individual or Team #1 at anything since it's all worthless to begin with. If I put up 5 Million Credits at WCG like I've been trying to reach for the last many month's now & some one else put's up 5 Million Credits divided among 20 different somewhat meaningless Projects who really has done more. Sure the guy that hit 20 Projects gets 20 more MM's but if their some what meaningless Projects does it really matter.

    I gritted my Teeth when Bok came out with the MM Rankings & think they has done just as much to hurt the really Important Humanity Projects as DA has done with his constant fiddling with the Credits. I thought Jesus now I have to chase a bunch of Projects that have no real worth to keep up with the Jones. I halfheartedly did try to keep pace but eventually decided it just wasn't worth it anymore. I'll settle for running something that actually benefits humanity & let the other chase every Micky Mouse Project that Pop's up ...

    My point is that MMs make cross-project credit parity moot, and resolves the issue. While still maintaining the ability measure yourself against others.

    You seem to be arguing to remove credits all together, and just crunch what you think has merit. That is a valid argument too. And you can do that today. Just stop looking at the stats. But that doesn't address the OP's concern with cross-project credit parity.
    "Don't confront me with my failures, I had not forgotten them" - Jackson Browne

    Avatar source


Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •