I think before we start worrying about inter-project parity we need to get everyone in the same project on the same page. Once you've accomplished that then you can worry about everyone else and decide if its even worth it.
When I suggest such a thing over at SETI, I'm routinely given a bunch of static from people that think that it is no reason to wait, that there is an overriding (thus implied greater) "need" to have "parity" between the projects. This seems to suggest that they believe that all intra-project blemishes "just average out anyway".
I think before we start worrying about inter-project parity we need to get everyone in the same project on the same page. Once you've accomplished that then you can worry about everyone else and decide if its even worth it.
When I suggest such a thing over at SETI, I'm routinely given a bunch of static from people that think that it is no reason to wait, that there is an overriding (thus implied greater) "need" to have "parity" between the projects. This seems to suggest that they believe that all intra-project blemishes "just average out anyway".
They have enough problems already with everyone and his brother making an optimized client that its a major research project to even figure out which one you should use if you wanted one. I never considered running an optimized client until I saw that here it was an honest effort to try and make the linux and windows clients more even. And to top it off it wasn't just the participants but the administration's support that helped me decide. It has never seemed like a competition on who could do better.
My goal was to get to 1 million credits here and then go back to CPDN and work on those stats and get them up to Einstein's and then run both 50/50. Unless we get an optimized client that looks like it will just take me a while longer. In the meantime I could care less what seti or any other project gives in credit or what they deem to be best for everyone.
Sorry for rambling on. I just spent the better part of the day taking my mom to the doctor 50 miles away and I'm hot, tired and trying to take my mind off that mess from today.
Sorry for rambling on. I just spent the better part of the day taking my mom to the doctor 50 miles away and I'm hot, tired and trying to take my mind off that mess from today.
Let's hope she gets better. Put up your feet and drink something cold.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
You know, it just dawned on me that even intra-project stats are somewhat worthless...
This goes back to what Andy (Winterknight) said about wanting to know that his 2.2 mil are about the same as Mike's 2.3 mil...
Well, consider this, given two identical (hardware, settings, and OS) systems:
If I started as a new member during the S5R3 run and processed 2,000 units at the prior 237(ish) credit rate then stopped, I'd have about 474,000 credits. Let's say that total time per unit was 5 hours, for a total of 10,000 hours of contribution.
If I am a new member, joining today and processing only S5R4, if I process 2,000 units for, say, about 183 credits, I'd have about 366,000 credits. Let's say that total time per unit increased to 7 hours per unit, giving a total of 14,000 hours of contribution
2,000 units were performed by both systems, yet looking at credits alone, the only conclusion anyone can logically draw is that the S5R4 participant "did less work". There is no way to tell that more hours were donated by the second participant and also no way to know that "the science" was more in the 2nd participant's case, nor that some "cross-project parity" thingamajig impacted the 2nd participant.
All the jacking around with the credit - up, then down, then up, then down - just makes this effect worse...
Sorry for rambling on. I just spent the better part of the day taking my mom to the doctor 50 miles away and I'm hot, tired and trying to take my mind off that mess from today.
You know, it just dawned on me that even intra-project stats are somewhat worthless...
This goes back to what Andy (Winterknight) said about wanting to know that his 2.2 mil are about the same as Mike's 2.3 mil...
Well, consider this, given two identical (hardware, settings, and OS) systems:
If I started as a new member during the S5R3 run and processed 2,000 units at the prior 237(ish) credit rate then stopped, I'd have about 474,000 credits. Let's say that total time per unit was 5 hours, for a total of 10,000 hours of contribution.
If I am a new member, joining today and processing only S5R4, if I process 2,000 units for, say, about 183 credits, I'd have about 366,000 credits. Let's say that total time per unit increased to 7 hours per unit, giving a total of 14,000 hours of contribution
2,000 units were performed by both systems, yet looking at credits alone, the only conclusion anyone can logically draw is that the S5R4 participant "did less work". There is no way to tell that more hours were donated by the second participant and also no way to know that "the science" was more in the 2nd participant's case, nor that some "cross-project parity" thingamajig impacted the 2nd participant.
All the jacking around with the credit - up, then down, then up, then down - just makes this effect worse...
You called, no actually all you did was mention me.
Think your logic is a bit flawed, you really ought to consider a career as a politician or statistician, they are always bending the truth.
From your figures I have to assume you are assuming with your first member that they have been running the power app. So any cr/hr figures are not the norm.
And for the second computer you are assuming the credits will stay at the ~180 mark for S5R4. Bernd has already said, in the post I now see you have seen, note I did not say read, that there is already a 13.9% increase and it will be kept under review.
Having looked at several hosts, where I think the default apps only were used, I see for a lot the time difference to process a S5R3 unit and a S5R4 unit is not much different, This host is typical. So on standard app we are going to see a decrease from ~237 to ~210 that is only ~12%. Not the 28% Bernd mentioned. By the way the original granted of 185 is 28% lower than 237.
And if you are going to make comparisons of two computer it would be better to compare total hours not number of units.
Some participants have from time to time expressed quite an enthusiasm for some species of 'certificate of acknowledgment'. This is not as silly as it might first appear to some. It hasn't triggered much actual activity, though. Probably only implementable on a per project basis - heck if the cross project credit topic resembles the Somme in 1916, then you'd have practically no hope of doing this otherwise. You could have lots of variations. Just some top-of-head ideas:
- credit milestones ( we seem to like powers of ten and car odometer rollovers )
- RAC thresholds ( and persistence of )
- longevity of service ( continuous with non-zero RAC, or above a RAC of X )
- project milestones ( contribution to a given science run say )
- Hall of Fame, recording online any of the above ( like our local footy club's Best & Fairest Player award )
- Hello & Thanks For Joining Whatever@Home on dd/mm/yyyy
- competitions for certificate design.
- it could be all virtual/online. Hardcopy available for download and print your own at home. Or little gif versions to adorn your avatar or sig areas. ( digital watermarking, rego numbers, publicly viewable central repository to check veracity etc to avert the inevitable spoofing )
Probably most of you responding here might view this as some variant on kindergarten clubs and finger painting. But I'm thinking of a wider audience ( even actual kindergartens full of finger painters ) that could respond.
So I don't want to eradicate credits, not at all. But I think one could 'round out' the DC involvement, if nought else but to buttress the credit idea that clearly is attractive to so many. [ And of course this pleases me as more science gets done! ]
Like Nobel prizes they could be refused of course.
However, like Corn Flakes packet competitions that exclude '....employees and families of the Kelloggs Company ..... ', I think you'd have to rule out moderators/developers et al from the get go [ definitely the publicly funded multi-mega-node giants ]. Propriety, and the demonstration of that, is a key feature.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) Winternight - I took Brian's point as asking if 2005 ..... 06 ..... 07 .... 08 credits are comparable.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Sorry for rambling on. I just spent the better part of the day taking my mom to the doctor 50 miles away and I'm hot, tired and trying to take my mind off that mess from today.
Let's hope she gets better. Put up your feet and drink something cold.
Cheers, Mike.
My mom had a "Mind Meld" session with the kitchen floor last month. Got 8 stitches over her eye. It's been a round of doctors ever since. Thankfully she is okay and there are no lasting effects other than one eyebrow looks weird.
Thanks for understanding during my 1/2 logical rant.
You called, no actually all you did was mention me.
Think your logic is a bit flawed, you really ought to consider a career as a politician or statistician, they are always bending the truth.
While I have enjoyed previous conversations with you, I'll start out by saying I'm having a hard time internally on NOT acting impusively... The desire is there, because I'm *VERY* tired of being attacked...
Quote:
From your figures I have to assume you are assuming with your first member that they have been running the power app. So any cr/hr figures are not the norm.
The choice of application used flat out does not matter here when it comes to the number of credits granted. I'm going to say that you are confused.
Whatever we had before 4.26 gave the same amount of credit as 4.26 did. 4.36 gave the same amount of credit as 4.26 did. The variability was only in the runtime, thus in the cr/hr.
A host running 4.26 claimed and received the same amount of credit that my host running 4.36 did.
The point is that if 2000 units are processed under one credit scheme, NOT CREDIT PER HOUR, BUT RAW CREDIT PER TASK, while 2000 are processed under another, the amount of TOTAL CREDIT, NOT CREDIT PER HOUR, will be different.
If you want to claim that 2000 * 2 and 2000 * 1 are the same, knock yourself out, but it is a mathematical fact that they are different, unless you are attempting to invent "New Math"...
Quote:
And if you are going to make comparisons of two computer it would be better to compare total hours not number of units.
WOW! Maybe you sorta grasped the concept towards the end.
Now, go back and reread.
Try and "see the light"... Ranking based on totals, even within a project, can only be obtained by running two computers during the same credit scheme. If the two systems are in different credit schemes, then basing the "ranking" of that system based on credits alone will not necessarily reflect the whole truth. It does reflect truth in regards to the numerical credit (cobblestones), but may or may not reflect the truth in regards to total contribution in regards to number of tasks / science performed.
Brian, I hope that everything goes well with your dad's surgery and that he has a speedy recovery. Hope a cold one is waiting for you to relax when its over.
RE: I think before we start
)
When I suggest such a thing over at SETI, I'm routinely given a bunch of static from people that think that it is no reason to wait, that there is an overriding (thus implied greater) "need" to have "parity" between the projects. This seems to suggest that they believe that all intra-project blemishes "just average out anyway".
RE: RE: I think before we
)
They have enough problems already with everyone and his brother making an optimized client that its a major research project to even figure out which one you should use if you wanted one. I never considered running an optimized client until I saw that here it was an honest effort to try and make the linux and windows clients more even. And to top it off it wasn't just the participants but the administration's support that helped me decide. It has never seemed like a competition on who could do better.
My goal was to get to 1 million credits here and then go back to CPDN and work on those stats and get them up to Einstein's and then run both 50/50. Unless we get an optimized client that looks like it will just take me a while longer. In the meantime I could care less what seti or any other project gives in credit or what they deem to be best for everyone.
Sorry for rambling on. I just spent the better part of the day taking my mom to the doctor 50 miles away and I'm hot, tired and trying to take my mind off that mess from today.
RE: Sorry for rambling on.
)
Let's hope she gets better. Put up your feet and drink something cold.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
You know, it just dawned on
)
You know, it just dawned on me that even intra-project stats are somewhat worthless...
This goes back to what Andy (Winterknight) said about wanting to know that his 2.2 mil are about the same as Mike's 2.3 mil...
Well, consider this, given two identical (hardware, settings, and OS) systems:
If I started as a new member during the S5R3 run and processed 2,000 units at the prior 237(ish) credit rate then stopped, I'd have about 474,000 credits. Let's say that total time per unit was 5 hours, for a total of 10,000 hours of contribution.
If I am a new member, joining today and processing only S5R4, if I process 2,000 units for, say, about 183 credits, I'd have about 366,000 credits. Let's say that total time per unit increased to 7 hours per unit, giving a total of 14,000 hours of contribution
2,000 units were performed by both systems, yet looking at credits alone, the only conclusion anyone can logically draw is that the S5R4 participant "did less work". There is no way to tell that more hours were donated by the second participant and also no way to know that "the science" was more in the 2nd participant's case, nor that some "cross-project parity" thingamajig impacted the 2nd participant.
All the jacking around with the credit - up, then down, then up, then down - just makes this effect worse...
RE: Sorry for rambling on.
)
My Dad has surgery tomorrow, so I can relate...
RE: You know, it just
)
You called, no actually all you did was mention me.
Think your logic is a bit flawed, you really ought to consider a career as a politician or statistician, they are always bending the truth.
From your figures I have to assume you are assuming with your first member that they have been running the power app. So any cr/hr figures are not the norm.
And for the second computer you are assuming the credits will stay at the ~180 mark for S5R4. Bernd has already said, in the post I now see you have seen, note I did not say read, that there is already a 13.9% increase and it will be kept under review.
Having looked at several hosts, where I think the default apps only were used, I see for a lot the time difference to process a S5R3 unit and a S5R4 unit is not much different, This host is typical. So on standard app we are going to see a decrease from ~237 to ~210 that is only ~12%. Not the 28% Bernd mentioned. By the way the original granted of 185 is 28% lower than 237.
And if you are going to make comparisons of two computer it would be better to compare total hours not number of units.
Some participants have from
)
Some participants have from time to time expressed quite an enthusiasm for some species of 'certificate of acknowledgment'. This is not as silly as it might first appear to some. It hasn't triggered much actual activity, though. Probably only implementable on a per project basis - heck if the cross project credit topic resembles the Somme in 1916, then you'd have practically no hope of doing this otherwise. You could have lots of variations. Just some top-of-head ideas:
- credit milestones ( we seem to like powers of ten and car odometer rollovers )
- RAC thresholds ( and persistence of )
- longevity of service ( continuous with non-zero RAC, or above a RAC of X )
- project milestones ( contribution to a given science run say )
- Hall of Fame, recording online any of the above ( like our local footy club's Best & Fairest Player award )
- Hello & Thanks For Joining Whatever@Home on dd/mm/yyyy
- competitions for certificate design.
- it could be all virtual/online. Hardcopy available for download and print your own at home. Or little gif versions to adorn your avatar or sig areas. ( digital watermarking, rego numbers, publicly viewable central repository to check veracity etc to avert the inevitable spoofing )
Probably most of you responding here might view this as some variant on kindergarten clubs and finger painting. But I'm thinking of a wider audience ( even actual kindergartens full of finger painters ) that could respond.
So I don't want to eradicate credits, not at all. But I think one could 'round out' the DC involvement, if nought else but to buttress the credit idea that clearly is attractive to so many. [ And of course this pleases me as more science gets done! ]
Like Nobel prizes they could be refused of course.
However, like Corn Flakes packet competitions that exclude '....employees and families of the Kelloggs Company ..... ', I think you'd have to rule out moderators/developers et al from the get go [ definitely the publicly funded multi-mega-node giants ]. Propriety, and the demonstration of that, is a key feature.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) Winternight - I took Brian's point as asking if 2005 ..... 06 ..... 07 .... 08 credits are comparable.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: RE: Sorry for
)
My mom had a "Mind Meld" session with the kitchen floor last month. Got 8 stitches over her eye. It's been a round of doctors ever since. Thankfully she is okay and there are no lasting effects other than one eyebrow looks weird.
Thanks for understanding during my 1/2 logical rant.
RE: You called, no
)
While I have enjoyed previous conversations with you, I'll start out by saying I'm having a hard time internally on NOT acting impusively... The desire is there, because I'm *VERY* tired of being attacked...
The choice of application used flat out does not matter here when it comes to the number of credits granted. I'm going to say that you are confused.
Whatever we had before 4.26 gave the same amount of credit as 4.26 did. 4.36 gave the same amount of credit as 4.26 did. The variability was only in the runtime, thus in the cr/hr.
A host running 4.26 claimed and received the same amount of credit that my host running 4.36 did.
The point is that if 2000 units are processed under one credit scheme, NOT CREDIT PER HOUR, BUT RAW CREDIT PER TASK, while 2000 are processed under another, the amount of TOTAL CREDIT, NOT CREDIT PER HOUR, will be different.
If you want to claim that 2000 * 2 and 2000 * 1 are the same, knock yourself out, but it is a mathematical fact that they are different, unless you are attempting to invent "New Math"...
WOW! Maybe you sorta grasped the concept towards the end.
Now, go back and reread.
Try and "see the light"... Ranking based on totals, even within a project, can only be obtained by running two computers during the same credit scheme. If the two systems are in different credit schemes, then basing the "ranking" of that system based on credits alone will not necessarily reflect the whole truth. It does reflect truth in regards to the numerical credit (cobblestones), but may or may not reflect the truth in regards to total contribution in regards to number of tasks / science performed.
RE: My Dad has surgery
)
Brian, I hope that everything goes well with your dad's surgery and that he has a speedy recovery. Hope a cold one is waiting for you to relax when its over.