Standardized Credits

[Bok]

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.

You mean something like this - http://stats.free-dc.org/stats.php?page=boincusersrank

I did this a long time ago, but there was not too much interest in it at the time, left it in the code though..

First column (rankpoints) is calculated per project as 10000 - ((rank - 1) * (10000 / total_num-users))

Second columnn is calculated as (user_score / total_project_score) * total_users in project

I don't recall all my decisions in coming up with this at the time as it was a few years ago.

[zombie67]

You mean something like this - http://stats.free-dc.org/stats.php?page=boincusersrank

Well, that is *obviously* the perfect way to score BOINC.

[STE\/E]

Well, that is *obviously* the perfect way to score BOINC.

Right, I Bow to the #1 BOINC'er ...

[Slicker]

[rant on]
Everyone wants GPU apps regardless of whether a project's app will work well on a GPU. One person writes an apps that uses 50% of a GPU but 90% of a CPU. Someone else writes an app for a different project that uses 99% GPU and 0.1% CPU. According to CreditNew, both should get the same credits because they are running on the same hardware even though one of them leaves the GPU idle half the time and runs on the CPU instead which slows down crunching for other projects.

What if you have the same app and two different users running it. One downclocks his GPU by 50% and the other overclocks his GPU by 20%. The latter does more than double the work but gets the same credit per second because they are the crunching with the same device.

CreditNew assumes all projects have the same requirements. Bad assumption. Does the RAM or MB speed make a difference? Ram amount? Disk speed? Network speed? None of those are accounted for in NewCredit. What about 32 vs 64 bit? The latter can do double the work on some projects but still gets the same credit as the 32-bit app because the CPUs are the same.

Old vs new CPU is the same arguement. If one CPU won't support SSE4 and but another does and that allows it to compete a WU faster, shouldn't it get more credit per second when compared to some other project which doesn't have SSE4 apps and both CPUs earn the same there?
[rant off]

[DrPop]

Right, I Bow to the #1 BOINC'er ...

ROFL! Hahaha...oh man, don't get me started. This really could be simple. Slicker's got it figured out, and Collatz is done right. It's not that arbitrary, either. X credit based of X rig. Your rig either does more or less work in 24 hours than the baseline, and you wind up with appropriate credit.

Rant ON
Credit new blows and there is literally no other description for it. It is an asinine concept . . . *censored* . . . created by those who want to give everyone the "same" BOINCing experience. Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Kumbya and credits don't exactly mix.
The Germans and SICI* aren't holding our hands around the campfire and strumming the guitar with us. They are kicking our arses and laughing at our impotence as we bounce around at a 4th place RAC. Unfortunately for some, this does involved points, it's a game, and unlike what they try to teach my daughter here in California schools, by definition, there WILL be a winner and there will be loser(s) because it IS a game.

Alright, I was holding back there as good as I could...go on, ask me how I really feel about Credit New and screwing any of us who invested money, energy and time into upgrading our rigs for the sole purpose of crunching. We ARE the hand that feeds them, and yes, you did just feel a bite.
Rant OFF

[spingadus]

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'm not sure that all projects need to have some meaningfulness to everyone with respect to competition. I see the MM's, total credit and ranking systems as being the 'fun' part of the BOINC hobby. If project meaningfulness is personally more important to a cruncher than that puts him into the 'I do it for the science and not the credits' group. In my case, I think it's about 50/50. I started crunching for the projects I like, but the personal and team competition keeps me going. I just want a competition system that is logically sound. As it is, the total credit method is logically unsound. At least the MM and average project ranking method solves the problem of disparate credit granting among projects.

To play devils advocate, as BOINC grows and more and more projects pop up, it will be become difficult to keep up. Imagine if there are 500 projects running. I would say any ideas of global competition might not be feasible.

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.

WCG is my favorite project as I believe it is more potentially beneficial to humanity. Even though I crunch other projects for my MM's I always crunch WCG. MM's make the hobby more fun. If I lose the fun in BOINC, I will probably just stop crunching altogether. So, in some sense the MM's are keeping me in the Boinc world and WCG benefits.

I'll settle for running something that actually benefits humanity & let the other chase every Micky Mouse Project that Pop's up ...

Does that mean you are no longer going to crunch the high paying projects like DirT or PG? Just curious.

[spingadus]

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.

Nice. I like what they are doing, but I disagree with the points system. It should be more linear and include more than the top 10 ranks. It penalizes the teams that are more widely spread and gives more credence to those that focus on being in the top 10 in a limited number of projects. You could be ranked number 11 in 100 projects and get 0 points, while another team can be ranked 10 in only 10 projects and at least get 10 points.

[spingadus]

You mean something like this - http://stats.free-dc.org/stats.php?page=boincusersrank

I did this a long time ago, but there was not too much interest in it at the time, left it in the code though..

First column (rankpoints) is calculated per project as 10000 - ((rank - 1) * (10000 / total_num-users))

Second columnn is calculated as (user_score / total_project_score) * total_users in project

I don't recall all my decisions in coming up with this at the time as it was a few years ago.

This is cool! It would be awesome to see more than 100 users and include teams as well.

Do you have any plans on continuing with it?

[spingadus]

Rant ON
Credit new blows and there is literally no other description for it. It is an asinine concept, completely ill founded by liberally brain washed academic nut jobs who have never worked in the real world and therefore don't understand the concept of competition
Rant OFF

Personally, I think they are just being lazy. I do agree with you DrPop that creditnew is asinine, although I don't agree with the generalization that it's a liberal/academic thing. I consider myself to be a moderate and my political are both conservative and liberal depending on the separate issue. Meaning, I don't toe any party line other than my own. This means that I have had many friends on both sides of the isle,from ultra conservative to ultra liberal and in both academia, the military and in the private sector. I can't think of a single friend that would think that it's ok to give a faster machine the same credit as a slower one. More work should equal more pay. It's just common sense. I think the BOINC devs can't figure out a way to accurately measure devices properly and so are just averaging things out. If they can't do it right, they shouldn't do it at all and let the projects deal with it internally.

[Bok]

This is cool! It would be awesome to see more than 100 users and include teams as well.

Do you have any plans on continuing with it?

It does all users, there just isn't code to allow that page to have the Next/Prev buttons as that's a small javascript change.

Would be trivial to add it to teams as well. Sure I can do that. *Well the non-trivial part is calculating for projects which no longer export xml but I've done it before so not too bad*