Credit adjustment

Winterknight
Winterknight
Joined: 4 Jun 05
Posts: 656
Credit: 221,490,871
RAC: 40,431

RE: I wasn't joking when I

Quote:

I wasn't joking when I said that you (general sense) do not see the deflationary actions of what you are proposing. You are so concerned about fighting the possible inflation fears that you appear to be oblivious to the deflation. It is either that explanation or that since it curtails inflation that you don't care about any deflationary effects.


As far as I can tell, mainly because all the AP work I am doing is on the Beta site, Eric's method is inflating the credits for AP units on the main site. Initially they were the same as on the Beta site @ 684.33cr, it is now reported on Main they were claiming/granted 714.40, but 24 hrs later it is now at 719.06cr. At the same time granted for MB work is decreasing.

Brian Silvers
Brian Silvers
Joined: 26 Aug 05
Posts: 772
Credit: 282,700
RAC: 0

RE: RE: I wasn't joking

Message 83878 in response to message 83877

Quote:
Quote:

I wasn't joking when I said that you (general sense) do not see the deflationary actions of what you are proposing. You are so concerned about fighting the possible inflation fears that you appear to be oblivious to the deflation. It is either that explanation or that since it curtails inflation that you don't care about any deflationary effects.

As far as I can tell, mainly because all the AP work I am doing is on the Beta site, Eric's method is inflating the credits for AP units on the main site. Initially they were the same as on the Beta site @ 684.33cr, it is now reported on Main they were claiming/granted 714.40, but 24 hrs later it is now at 719.06cr. At the same time granted for MB work is decreasing.

You are looking at only the current short-term. You need to increase your view to a longer time horizon and then follow what happens over time as the median slides up the scale...

Winterknight
Winterknight
Joined: 4 Jun 05
Posts: 656
Credit: 221,490,871
RAC: 40,431

Question? Is my contribution

Question?
Is my contribution to a project greater now, with a new computer, than three years ago with my then new computer?
They both cost about the same but the present computer uses less electricity. The old computer has been retired is no longer attached.

Brian Silvers
Brian Silvers
Joined: 26 Aug 05
Posts: 772
Credit: 282,700
RAC: 0

RE: Question? Is my

Message 83880 in response to message 83879

Quote:
Question?
Is my contribution to a project greater now, with a new computer, than three years ago with my then new computer?
They both cost about the same but the present computer uses less electricity. The old computer has been retired is no longer attached.

Yes, it typically would be because the newer computer would typically process units faster.

Not sure where you're going with this, because this would be true regardless of the credit schema.

Extreme example:

  • *Scenario A - You process 10 tasks on your 3-year old computer and are awarded 100 credit (10 per task). You process 50 tasks on your newer computer and are awarded 500 credit (10 per task).
    *Scenario B - You process 10 tasks on your 3-year old computer and are awarded 100 credit (10 per task). You process 50 tasks on your newer computer and are awarded 400 credit (8 per task).
    *Scenario C - You process 10 tasks on your 3-year old computer and are awarded 80 credit (8 per task). You process 50 tasks on your newer computer and are awarded 500 credit (10 per task).

In all of those cases the newer computer did more tasks than the older computer.

The main concept you appear to be having a hard time grasping is that the situation changes if one computer operates during two different credit schemas while another computer operates/operated under one credit schema. I've demonstrated that before with the "2000 tasks" scenario. Do I need to repeat the example?

Erik
Erik
Joined: 14 Feb 06
Posts: 2,815
Credit: 2,645,600
RAC: 0

I´m getting to the point of

I´m getting to the point of wishing that each individual project would issue their own individual credit ¨coin¨ and be done with credit adjustments/cross project credit parity. Because whatever is done will never satisfy everyone.

gaz
gaz
Joined: 11 Oct 05
Posts: 650
Credit: 1,902,306
RAC: 0

best idear yet on

best idear yet on credits
good on you evermore
any one agree
cheers
garry

Erik
Erik
Joined: 14 Feb 06
Posts: 2,815
Credit: 2,645,600
RAC: 0

RE: best idear yet on

Message 83883 in response to message 83882

Quote:
best idear yet on credits
good on you evermore
any one agree
cheers
garry

Not my original idea... I think I read on a recent thread (perhaps even this one) of one or two stating something similar.

-edit- from the bantering between tullio, Winterknight, th3, and Phil earlier in this thread, I don´t know if there was any seriousness in it though.

gaz
gaz
Joined: 11 Oct 05
Posts: 650
Credit: 1,902,306
RAC: 0

no matter good idear BUT the

no matter good idear
BUT the results of the project are the main point
am i right or am i right

Alinator
Alinator
Joined: 8 May 05
Posts: 927
Credit: 9,352,143
RAC: 0

OK, so if we are going to say

OK, so if we are going to say that there is absolutely no way to determine how much work is actually being done for anything, and the proposal is to just let each project give credit as they say fit...

Then I suggest as a corollary to that and further propose:

1.) All projects stop exporting stat xml's, since merely doing that invites comparisons between projects with the implied given that the basis for scoring on all projects is the same, when it is not.

2.) All projects should reset the running count of credit granted for all entities every time the basis for granting credit changes. The reason here is that a running total implies that the basis is constant over time, when in fact it is not.

Alinator

Brian Silvers
Brian Silvers
Joined: 26 Aug 05
Posts: 772
Credit: 282,700
RAC: 0

RE: OK, so if we are going

Message 83886 in response to message 83885

Quote:

OK, so if we are going to say that there is absolutely no way to say how much work is actually being done for anything, and the proposal is to just let each project give credit as they say fit...

Then I suggest as a corollary to that and further propose:

1.) All projects stop exporting stat xml's, since merely doing that invites comparisons between projects with the implied given that the basis for scoring on all projects is the same, when it is not.

2.) All projects should reset the running count of credit granted for all entities every time the basis for granting credit changes. The reason here is that a running total implies that the basis is constant over time, when in fact it is not.

Alinator

Seconded...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.