In several cases, I've had work units suddenly complete and then give me 8-20 points. Here are my completed ones:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?userid=111089&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=1021338392

This is an example of one. I think the client said it was at 80% of the way done and when I came back with a cup of coffee it said 0.00% and had started a new WU.

Am I missing something?

---

In several cases, I've had work units suddenly complete and then give me 8-20 points. Here are my completed ones:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?userid=111089&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=1021338392

This is an example of one. I think the client said it was at 80% of the way done and when I came back with a cup of coffee it said 0.00% and had started a new WU.

Am I missing something?

These tasks were all issued a while ago when something went very wrong for a short period of days. It went away quite quickly, so your new tasks ought to be fine. We all got caught up in it at the time

---

Ok. So it was just the tasks and not something like someone completing them ahead of me.

---

Ok. So it was just the tasks and not something like someone completing them ahead of me.

You've made me look again.
2 of them you missed deadline but you still reported first and got what little credit was going. The others met the original deadline, so no conflict.
Tbh you're unlucky because I thought it was a validation issue at the time, but it seems it was something wrong with the tasks themselves.

---

I'm hoping this is the last of them.
7hrs 40min for 20 Credits is a bit rough.

7gx1hj1r_jhr_design1_COVID-19_SAVE_ALL_OUT_903475_1_1

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Hi!

I have seen that all my tasks that i got on 30.03.2020 had this bug of low credits and were ended by watchdog.
So i kicked the remaining bugged tasks back to the server before they start.
But it seems, they where send out now to other users. e.g.
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=1024166306
Maybe the bug will still be alive some more days...
Wouldn't it be better to cancel the tasks by the server if they have not started yet as they all seems to have a problem?

Best Regards
MagicEye

Hi, when you have solved the problem, maybe I will come back to crunch for you

I'm hoping this is the last of them.
7hrs 40min for 20 Credits is a bit rough.

7gx1hj1r_jhr_design1_COVID-19_SAVE_ALL_OUT_903475_1_1

I was speaking to a friend yesterday. Very intelligent guy. I'm trying to convince him to run Boinc and Rosetta (and join my team) but it's a bit of a struggle. I'm still trying.

Anyway, I was describing how the Boinc platform operates, what the different projects do and the scoring system etc.
And regarding credits, how people get upset for low 'paying' projects (and tasks I guess) and, as a non-cruncher his perspective was... direct, shall I say. It went like this:

These people aren't running jobs for the benefit of the project. They're running for the stats.
They think they're more important than the project they're running. Essentially, they are narcissists

It's hard to argue with that. In fact, impossible to argue with it, credibly.

---

It's hard to argue with that. In fact, impossible to argue with it, credibly.

If recognition of the work people do wasn't important, there wouldn't be money.
If recognition of the work done for a project wasn't important, there wouldn't be Credits.
But it is, so there are.

No one likes to be ripped off, no one likes to feel others are getting more than they should.
It's all well and good hoping people will do a project purely for the sake of the project, but if a project really wants to get results they need as much computing power as they can get, and to do that they need to keep in mind human nature and acknowledge people's contribution to that project, and to do so fairly and equitably.

It's hard to argue with that. In fact, impossible to argue with it, credibly.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Bah ... personally I follow a diet, according to my blood type and I derive many benefits from it (moreover, I believe it is preserving me from Covid19 contamination), so I know well the positive effect on me of proteins. For me that's what matters!
And if scientists (rightly) care how they do or how they behave, well ... I give them a hand if I can and when / how I can. R @ H is a way, which provides a sort of virtual compensation in exchange for my support. If this fails, my voluntary "efforts" ... even economic ones, are thwarted, so I do not consider myself a narcissist, especially when those who "judge" keep the boincstats in good evidence in the signature.
I just don't want to be fooled!

It is truly frustrating to get 20 cred for 12 hrs job.

@Sid Celery it's quite unfair to blame people who pay attention to credits!

All of us don't get paid
All of us invest money into hardware and electricity to be volunteers
In return I personally want fair estimate of my contribution and bloody tiny *.png badge, is it too much to ask for?

---

Rest assured that these credit reports are generally reflective of issues in the program, or work unit creation, or worst-case resource combinations across a distributed network of heterogeneous machine environments. Your machines have already reported the problems back to the servers. The Project Team already combs through the reports to locate such problems.

At this point, they've just released a new application version, and they've got a global pandemic to study. Should they direct their attention to further improving on the successful results? Or to assuring credit equity across the user community? Doing both is not an option right now.

I, for one, would much rather they focus their attention on the pandemic problem. If that means putting out a new application that is needed to study it, and means a rough introduction where work is hard to get and tasks fail and show poor credit, then I'm still all for it. I'd rather they push the code out the door and use it as best as possible to study the virus, than wait to have the code all perfect and study the virus some time later in the year.

Keep in mind that even just ONE great work unit makes it all worth it.

Please try to be patient, and let the BOINC Manager work to keep your machine(s) busy. As many have suggested, there are many BOINC projects worth supporting. While I'd love to have all of the world's machines attached to R@h, it doesn't make sense when there is not enough work available. BOINC is all setup to support multiple projects, enforce your desired resource shares across them, and to bring in work when it is available.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

It's hard to argue with that. In fact, impossible to argue with it, credibly.

If recognition of the work people do wasn't important, there wouldn't be money.

Money is a means of exchange. For Boinc credits there are no means of exchange. There's no legitimate comparison here.

If recognition of the work done for a project wasn't important, there wouldn't be Credits.
But it is, so there are.

It's actually quite a good idea not to have credits on the project at all. Having them is inevitably a distraction, for the reasons you give.

No one likes to be ripped off, no one likes to feel others are getting more than they should.
It's all well and good hoping people will do a project purely for the sake of the project, but if a project really wants to get results they need as much computing power as they can get, and to do that they need to keep in mind human nature and acknowledge people's contribution to that project, and to do so fairly and equitably.

That's certainly what it's become, but I'm not sure that makes it true.
The reality is that people donate their CPU time for the benefit of the project.
Setting aside the credit issue for the irrelevance that it is, CPU time has been donated and the project has received the benefit toward its goal. There is no loss, in the same way that receiving greater or fewer credits is no gain.

Then it's a matter of evaluating the goal of the project. It doesn't surprise me that for people coming from a project whose progress toward its purpose was somewhere close to zero it became an exercise in going through the process itself and not the achievement of its end, which most likely never even existed in the first place.

It's hard to argue with that. In fact, impossible to argue with it, credibly.

Repetition and reversal is not an argument, except to the extent that it reveals a complete lack of equivalence and thereby its failure as an argument.

---

Bah ... personally I follow a diet, according to my blood type and I derive many benefits from it (moreover, I believe it is preserving me from Covid19 contamination), so I know well the positive effect on me of proteins. For me that's what matters!
And if scientists (rightly) care how they do or how they behave, well ... I give them a hand if I can and when / how I can. R @ H is a way, which provides a sort of virtual compensation in exchange for my support. If this fails, my voluntary "efforts" ... even economic ones, are thwarted, so I do not consider myself a narcissist, especially when those who "judge" keep the boincstats in good evidence in the signature.
I just don't want to be fooled!

If it wasn't the stats in my signature, it was trying to get him to join, but also to join <my> team. If the first was a historic decision, the second confirms it as still in effect. So yes, it applies to me just as well to that extent.
Am I offended or insulted? No. I'm only what I am. I recognise it and can't deny it. That's why I can take the argument on its merits.

It's an interesting approach to point out that it applies to me just as well, which it does, as if that invalidates it. Remember, it's not me who pointed it out, but someone who doesn't want to get involved in the game to begin with.
The purpose being, to undermine the person pointing the issue out as a means of invalidating the argument by association, but without ever actually addressing it.
It's certainly a popular line to take, but wholly without merit.

---

It is truly frustrating to get 20 cred for 12 hrs job.

100% frustrating. I had a look at some tasks I returned yesterday and saw I got a re-issue from someone else. Arghhh!

@Sid Celery it's quite unfair to blame people who pay attention to credits!

All of us don't get paid
All of us invest money into hardware and electricity to be volunteers
In return I personally want fair estimate of my contribution and bloody tiny *.png badge, is it too much to ask for?

It isn't unfair at all. It's a plain fact. Getting upset about it is unfair.
You invested money because you wanted to - as did I (and I have again today as it happens).
Any reward is the benefit the project provides, if it does at all, or if it brings a solution that tiny little bit earlier.
A .png badge? Not so much (or at all)

---

At this point, they've just released a new application version, and they've got a global pandemic to study. Should they direct their attention to further improving on the successful results? Or to assuring credit equity across the user community? Doing both is not an option right now.

This is the point. While I pay a stupid amount of attention to credits too, not for a second would I have the arrogance of pomposity to think it deserved to divert anyone's attention to retrospectively fix it.
It's wrong, and I'm sure done by accident. All I'd expect is that the scoring is done the right way rather than the wrong way next time, as they do 99% of the time

---

Money is a means of exchange.

Originally, yes.
Those days are long gone. It's now an indicator of wealth, used for rewarding people for the work they do. Acknowledgement of their contribution.

For Boinc credits there are no means of exchange. There's no legitimate comparison here.

Oh please, really?
We provide our computing resources, projects provide credits to acknowledge that.


It's actually quite a good idea not to have credits on the project at all. Having them is inevitably a distraction, for the reasons you give.[/quote]And without acknowledgement of work done, you wouldn't have many people at all supporting the project.
And the only distraction is your insistence that recognition for the work people do for a project isn't important.

The reality is that people donate their CPU time for the benefit of the project.
Setting aside the credit issue for the irrelevance that it is, CPU time has been donated and the project has received the benefit toward its goal. There is no loss, in the same way that receiving greater or fewer credits is no gain.

CPU time has been donated, because people are interested in the project, and they receive acknowledgement for their contributions.
With no acknowledgement even many of those who believe strongly in the project won't hang around for long, hence why all forms of distributed computing provide Credits of some form or another (even if under a different name) to recognise the contributions to their projects.

It's hard to argue with that. In fact, impossible to argue with it, credibly.

Repetition and reversal is not an argument, except to the extent that it reveals a complete lack of equivalence and thereby its failure as an argument.[/quote]And nor are debating semantics, yet you use them, along with disparaging comments about others and their choices. Try keeping to the topic and avoid personal slights & attacks.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Money is a means of exchange.

Originally, yes.
Those days are long gone. It's now an indicator of wealth, used for rewarding people for the work they do. Acknowledgement of their contribution.

Wealth in terms of what?
It's of as much value as freelancers getting paid no money but in "exposure". There's no wealth in acknowledgement just as there's no wealth in exposure

For Boinc credits there are no means of exchange. There's no legitimate comparison here.

Oh please, really?

"Oh please" and 'acknowledgement/exposure' is doing a pretty good job of confirming what the motivation is.

It's actually quite a good idea not to have credits on the project at all. Having them is inevitably a distraction, for the reasons you give.

And without acknowledgement of work done, you wouldn't have many people at all supporting the project.
And the only distraction is your insistence that recognition for the work people do for a project isn't important.

Ok, let's run with your line of thinking - that acknowledgement represents a form of wealth - or status perhaps.
Before whom?

The reality is that people donate their CPU time for the benefit of the project.
Setting aside the credit issue for the irrelevance that it is, CPU time has been donated and the project has received the benefit toward its goal. There is no loss, in the same way that receiving greater or fewer credits is no gain.

CPU time has been donated, because people are interested in the project, and they receive acknowledgement for their contributions.
With no acknowledgement even many of those who believe strongly in the project won't hang around for long, hence why all forms of distributed computing provide Credits of some form or another (even if under a different name) to recognise the contributions to their projects.

I'm not disputing that credits are a draw to people coming here. That's not even any part of the point being made - perhaps I should've emphasised this earlier, not that I expect people wouldn't have got offended first and avoided the point anyway. If it's part of what draws people here, it's at no cost after all. And the processing power of narcissists is as good as anyone's processing power. Some entire projects live off being 'high payers' of credit after all. It's more the point that a description is attached to that motivation. Various words can be used. Acknowledgement isn't a very good one, truth be told, but the more accurate alternative doesn't seem to be palatable either.

Most of this is small potatoes though. The ones I reserve most ire for are those who are effectively saying "pay me my credits or I'll punish you by taking my army of PCs away" - as if that isn't currently the emptiest of threats, deserving only of the never-given but fully-deserved reply "good - less whining" followed by something about doors and posteriors.

It's hard to argue with that. In fact, impossible to argue with it, credibly.

Repetition and reversal is not an argument, except to the extent that it reveals a complete lack of equivalence and thereby its failure as an argument.

And nor are debating semantics, yet you use them, along with disparaging comments about others and their choices. Try keeping to the topic and avoid personal slights & attacks.

Taking offence at an accurate descriptive word is your choice, as is taking it personally.
Discussing credits in a thread about credits is on topic.

The questions I've posed here are rhetorical btw. You've done a good job of explaining why I accepted the point made to (and about) me.

---

Ok, let's run with your line of thinking - that acknowledgement represents a form of wealth - or status perhaps.
Before whom?

You're the one who considers it's it to be a form of wealth or status (along with many others...).
I just consider it to be an acknowledgement of people's contribution to a project.

Some people will process a task for 2 hours, others for 36. Some applications are better than others, some hardware is faster or slower depending on the application. Some Tasks crash and burn, but still produce Valid Decoys, others just crash & burn. Some Tasks take more processing to produce less or more Decoys than others.
But overall the ideal would be for everyone's contribution to be acknowledged evenly in proportion to their contribution. There are all sorts of reasons why it's not possible, but at the very least the acknowledgement of people's contribution should be as balanced as is possible.
If you choose to consider Credits a form of wealth or Status or bragging rights, go for it. It's your choice to make. But that isn't their purpose, so any judgment made under your choice to consider Credits wealth or Stastus aren't valid.

Taking offence at an accurate descriptive word is your choice, as is taking it personally.

Ah, the "I don't know why you took offence when i was being offensive" argument.

Discussing credits in a thread about credits is on topic.

Whether they vary from the going rate, Yep.
But the intended and interpreted purpose of Credits & a;; the rest is off topic and belongs in a Politics/Philosophy/Economics thread in the Cafe.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Ok, let's run with your line of thinking - that acknowledgement represents a form of wealth - or status perhaps.
Before whom?

You're the one who considers it's it to be a form of wealth or status (along with many others...).
I just consider it to be an acknowledgement of people's contribution to a project.

Lol! It's literally 2 messages up - that _you_ made 'acknowledgement' analogous with the existence of money and then, when that was knocked down, with wealth.
There's no need to make things up as well as cutting things out of the quote that defeat the points you choose to make. Well, not without deleting previous messages...

If you choose to consider Credits a form of wealth or Status or bragging rights, go for it. It's your choice to make. But that isn't their purpose, so any judgment made under your choice to consider Credits wealth or Status aren't valid

It's like you haven't worked out which side you're arguing for. Apart from "it <is> their purpose" every word of that line is correct. I know, because it's the point I brought here.

Taking offence at an accurate descriptive word is your choice, as is taking it personally.

Ah, the "I don't know why you took offence when i was being offensive" argument.

Presumably you're taking offence at the word 'narcissism'? Everyone has that trait to a greater or lesser degree. It's not offensive in any respect. Everyone has to have just a little humility to acknowledge they aren't immune to it, as I have to others above. It would be more offensive to be accused of having no humility or not to admit to some degree of narcissism. Unless your claiming perfection as well as immunity!

Discussing credits in a thread about credits is on topic.

Whether they vary from the going rate, Yep.
But the intended and interpreted purpose of Credits & all the rest is off topic and belongs in a Politics/Philosophy/Economics thread in the Cafe.

I can't agree. The <need> for credits is intrinsic to the subject.

It's actually a very simple point, that giving undue weight to credits (and the receipt and hogging of tasks ahead of others and complaining daily about it not being fixed in the midst of a worldwide pandemic where every single thing done here is of higher importance) is unbalanced to the point of being narcissistic. It's self-evident if we're honest with ourselves, however we may prefer that particular word wasn't the one used. The right answer is to shrug guiltily and promise each other not to mention it again while making a mental note and dialling it down when some minor event arises in future, as it always will.

Whereas, to bite, deny it emphatically and make a scene about never having been so insulted (while on the internet) and threaten to take your ball away is probably the biggest admission a person can make that it's perfectly true.
"The Lady doth protest too much" was written in the 1600s, after all...

---