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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
RE: I wasn't joking when I
)
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.
RE: RE: I wasn't joking
)
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...
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.
RE: Question? Is my
)
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 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?
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.
best idear yet on
)
best idear yet on credits
good on you evermore
any one agree
cheers
garry
RE: best idear yet on
)
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.
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
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
RE: OK, so if we are going
)
Seconded...