How to inform an "Anonymous" user that his machine is throwing up dud results?
10 Oct 2007 19:05:29 UTC
Topic 193210
(moderation:
As the title states, how the smeg do I go about informing a user who has hidden his computers (the machine in question is shown as having an "Anonymous" owner) that at least one of his hosts is producing almost nothing but "compute error"s?
Of the 77 results currently listed for host #98021, one is still in progress, three have been processed correctly, and all of the others have failed....
I feel this is a prime example of why users should NOT be allowed to hide their computers; I cannot see ANY legitimate reason for doing so, and it's an open invitation for cheats.
It's high time this dubious feature was removed from BOINC!
TTFN - Pete.
How to inform an "Anonymous" user that his machine is throwing u
)
Or reduce the CPU quota to a realistic level. The host in question still got a quota of 18 after all those errors.
Team Philippines
RE: I feel this is a prime
)
Some people and companies use BOINC to 'burn in' and test the runs of CPUs that are still being tested, not released to the public yet. Those people and companies wouldn't want such a CPU showing up on their computer list and thus hiding them is their good right.
Other (new) people who use this option live under the misconception that everyone else can see all details about their computers. Names, IP addresses etc. Only by telling them we can't can we teach them.
And then there are people who don't want others to see what kind of computers they have. That's also their good right.
RE: Other (new) people who
)
It's been a long time since I joined BOINC as a total greenhorn, but I remember running with computers hidden for the first few weeks for just that reason. As I remember (almost two years ago), I was given very sparse information about the choice I was making, and it seemed important. I opted for safety.
Which raises the question: for new users joining BOINC and projects now, what is the default setting, and what guidance is given about the implications of changing it? Might be better to bias the influence towards 'show computers', on the grounds that it makes asking for and receiving help much easier: the power users with NDAs on new CPUs can look after themselves.
IIRC the default is to show
)
IIRC the default is to show your computer, it requires an explicit user action to hide your computers.
I strongly believe that you as a citizen "own" any information that refers to your personal sphere, as the number of PCs I own or what kind of PCs I own. I think it's only fair to let users decide whether they want to keep this information private or share it.
CU
Bikeman
RE: IIRC the default is to
)
Agreed, but I think you need to add the concept of "informed choice". I made - then - what I believe - now - to have been a bad choice, because I was ill-informed.
RE: Agreed, but I think you
)
The description of what happens is in the manual, so to say: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/UsageRules. (I just edited it for clarity. :-))
Bikeman: Also one of the
)
Bikeman: Also one of the campaigners for "informational self-determination"? Looks like we were given a reason to celebrate from Karlsruhe today ;-) although of course we haven't won yet.
From the technical point of view, however, I would encourage users to show their boxes aswell. It makes it easier to help in case of trouble and it also offers some nice opportunities for comparisons and statistics which can ultimately help make the project more efficient. All voluntarily, of course. But if you don't have really good reasons (like the experimental CPUs mentioned above) you have way more to win than to lose, imho. I wouldn't want to miss the geek talk about certain types of hardware alone :-D
RE: As the title states,
)
If you're attached to 747517 you're also in big trouble. I wish there was a way I could exclude him.
"souls ain't born, souls don't die"
At least erroring out quickly
)
At least erroring out quickly isn't too bad, as the unit is soon sent to a new cruncher.
The WORST is people who download dozens and let them time out. Those units aren't sent out again for a couple weeks!
RE: I feel this is a prime
)
I'm all for leaving it the way it is now. I test various software that is not generally available to the public. As long as I'm in testing mode I set my computers as hidden. When I'm not testing I undo it and let them be seen again.
If I really had a preference it would be to be able to hide/unhide individual computers so that I could selectively hide those that needed to be. As it is now, all are being hidden because 1 system is testing.