How did I forget!? Sorry about that!Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBob
Printable View
How did I forget!? Sorry about that!Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBob
Ding!
The team hit 1M for Sudoku yesterday, and that was our 76th 1M. This puts us in 1st place by 4. Yay!
Done and Done. Both the Team 5 Mil and the Team Top 10 (9th) on Sztaki.Quote:
Originally Posted by NJCaNS
Awesome job!
blah blah blah blah
Sweet, I will stay on it for a while though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumps
Thank you and well done. I was watching and hoping you'd stay with it and you saved me from jumping in there if it wound up just under 5 million.>:D<Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumps
Moo! Wrapper erased our ugly 4th place from the 25 million level, will knock SG down to 3rd at 50 million MM and dare we dream, eradicate the super ugly 5th place (turning it into a 2nd place) at 100 million.8->
BTW: what is a Moo! Wrapper? Some sort of genetically engineered leather? 3:-O
Hmmm, I've been following this thread with a mixed interest, until this last post really got me to thinking. I am not meaning to start a brawl with the MM dudes here. This is a legitimate question. Do you think anyone on S.G. or any other team really does look at these "MM scores" and tries to do battle with us on them? Or is it more like, the other "big teams" are concerned with being #1 overall, and these kind of "MM place holders" come automatically when a big, diverse team crunches whatever the individuals on that team like to crunch?
I'm actually very interested in knowing how many, if any, other crunchers out there look at MM's like some of you do here on this team - it would help our "marketing efforts" if we knew what caught people's eye the most.
Particular stats are meaningful to those who feel particular stats are meaningful. QED. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by DrPop
Seriously though, you think "total team credits" are important, right? Why? Because you think so? Or because you think others think so? Or...?
There are an infinite ways to measure a marshmallow. Is there a right way? Most popular? Most logical?
I could propose the worst method: A progressive (regressive?) method that applies a correction factor so that we all end up with the same score... Oh yeah, the DA method.
If it were true that other teams, or at least some people on other teams, didn't care about these, then several things would be true:
1. SETI.USA would be #1 in pretty much all the lower Team MM categories (we're not).
2. SETI.USA would be actively crunching substantially more projects than the other big teams (we're not).
3. Other teams would not report milestones (they do).
I'm sure there are others, but it's past 2am, and my brain is firing on its last cylinder...
The bigger issue is what "being #1" means. I'm not kidding when I say that I can think of at least (and this is a conservative estimate) 130 different ways to measure "Being #1". Let's look at a few...
- Overall BOINC Combined. Measured here. Yep, we're #3, and will probably drop to #4 soon.
- DC-Vault. This is a measure of overall contribution across all active distributed computing projects. We're ranked 16th.
- Keystrokes counted via Whatpulse. We don't have a rank, because we don't have a team. The #1 team? Dutch Power Cows. Who also happens to be fairly highly ranked in both DC-Vault and BOINC Combined.
- Folding@Home. There are twice as many Folding teams as there are BOINC teams. What's our rank there? 574.
If overall BOINC combined is the only thing people care about, then stop crunching most stuff. Ignore PG challenges. Forget the Pentathlon. Don't respond to any competition request. Put CUDA on PG, ATI on whatever project is paying the most (Moo at the moment, at least for single ATI cards), and CPUs on Aqua and Primaboinca. Ignore everything else and wait for someone from the MM crew to tell you about awesome credits.
Personally, I'd rather the team be ranked #5 in 100 different ways to measure Number One than #1 in very few.
Speaking of overall boinc combined stats, we hit 16 Billion as a team today!
SG is at #1 with a roughly 2B lead, Laf is 2nd, and Sic is about 1.9B below us in 4th place and gaining fast. I personally prefer to jump on whatever pays the highest and keeps them from passing us. I get the MM's as I go. For a long time, it was MW/Collatz. Then came Dnet. then Dnet was gone. Switched back MW. Now comes Moo. I just happened to hit MM's along the way. Maybe we should prioritize MM's according to credit. Is it really that important that we're #1 in Eon2 that pays about 3 credits per hour per core? MM's provide a goal to achieve, but does it help or hinder the overall goal?
http://www.setiusa.us/content.php?11...A-Team-History