Saenger: you included the "backtracking" word.. He is not. Also he is not interested in crossproject equality.

So did he in most of his post, only in the edit he said: "OK, if not, then at least for the future."
That's what I said several times. I can live without real stats for the past, it would only be nicer to have them. And the values are a decision, the project has to take, but that will have an effect on the participants.
If it doesn't fit in the BOINC scheme, I think quite a lot users will be lost. I don't know how hard it would be for Willy, Zain, Neil e.a. to put a correction factor in place for their stats pages if the values don't fit, or if they simply have to ditch Rosetta from the stats because of incompability.

Saenger: Please remove your BOINC blinders. BOINC will not drop waht is now its most succesful and most visble project because the project developers have made modifications to their credit schemes. Hey, isnt that the theory behind open sourcing: use what you need : improve on what needs to be improved?


But if by BOINC you mena those who compile the BOINC statistics used for those huge signature banners used to brag then you are speaking something different.

Boinc: the work platform is not the same as BOINC staistics. Any attemp to equate them and raise them to the level of revealed wisdom that can not be modiffied is disingenous at best .

Hold up let me get a picture !

Saenger and Jose agree on a possible way to backdate the credit system !;-)

I ajm not asking about backdating!!!!!!
Dont start with me Carl or I will drop you like a bad habit. :rofl:

Jose, explain please.

Why dont we use this that was in one of the threads that was deleted and was recieving some fair comments as a starting point

... may I suggest the following procedure:

For every old protein
For every procedure used on this protein (RelaxAll, IgnoreAll, whatever ...)
For every WU returned
calculate the Credit claimed Per Decoy generated (CPD)
Next WU returned

sort CPD in a descending order
ignore the top 3% values
Take the highest CPD value after that as being fixed (CPDf)

For every WU returned
Calculate corrected credit = decoys * CPDf
Adjust the awarded credit in the data base to be the new calculated credit.
Next WU returned
Next procedure
Next Protein

Please note:

The reason to ignore the top 3% values (and no more, or will affect employee A) is simple. This clears out (takes care of) all the:
potential rare PC flukes
a unit run that was too lucky
user "edited" the actual CPU time or benchmark
etc..
By applying the above procedure on each protein/procedure pair independently, we remove the effect of the protein properties (length, etc..) and procedure complexity from the equation.

The end result of this is the equivalent of a quorum of thousands of WUs of the same protein/procedure. No participant will lose credit, and the few questionable cases will be automatically adjusted in line downwards (thus saving the huge ongoing task of identification/verification/clarification). The total credit will end up being consistent with the actual work done (the widgets) while the unit price (dollar per widget) is fixed. Equality, and hopefully peace restored.

Jose,
I asked you about the Tallbill proposal. You never answer to a direct question, do you.

I am answering why I think the proposal can be workable. But if you and your friends only came to this thread to continue banging your heads and pick up a fight with me . Then , it takes two to fight.

I wil ignore you as a person who only wants to fight and not find a solution to the issues. But , warning, I will react to your attempts to flame here with the same passion that I have.


The time has come to look for solutions. Some reasonable, working and fair compromises have to be reached .

If you want to stay in your purist high horse ..you are welcome but then thon comkplaim where the only reaction you get is scorn.

In fact you are very smart in the way to know how push people to react, to become nervous and after a nervous breakdown to say bad words which will be used after. But at this game, we will also be two.
We hear you here for weeks, saying you are agaisnt BOINC, open source, credits, Rosetta must run outside BOINC, ...
Maybe. But then what are you still doing here?

Thierry look at what I am proposing.
Focus on that.

It's about retroactive levelling of the playing field.
That's fine, and that's just what I always wanted.

The values are at first (at least from a project-intern point of view) irrelevant. You can norm the credits per decoy at whatever you want, as long as it's consistent. I don't see any difference with norming them to the bottom, norming them to the top, or even norming them to twice the top value in project-intern effects.

The only difference the value makes is the compability to BOINC.

No way retroactive. The old credits stay as they are. The new credits are the ones that get modified.

Nice try to get the backdating into play.
But if you think I am backing the retroactive fitting of points. Tough noogies.

Any discussion , any attempted dicusion of back dating will tell me that the one proposing it is not serious.

Let me make it clear: NO backdatig.

Hold up let me get a picture !

Saenger and Jose agree on a possible way to backdate the credit system !;-)

carl, I'm afraid your shutter speed isn't fast enough to capture that moment. LOLLOLOLOL

Jose, explain please.

Why dont we use this that was in one of the threads that was deleted and was recieving some fair comments as a starting point

... may I suggest the following procedure:

For every old protein
For every procedure used on this protein (RelaxAll, IgnoreAll, whatever ...)
For every WU returned
calculate the Credit claimed Per Decoy generated (CPD)
Next WU returned

sort CPD in a descending order
ignore the top 3% values
Take the highest CPD value after that as being fixed (CPDf)

For every WU returned
Calculate corrected credit = decoys * CPDf
Adjust the awarded credit in the data base to be the new calculated credit.
Next WU returned
Next procedure
Next Protein

Please note:

The reason to ignore the top 3% values (and no more, or will affect employee A) is simple. This clears out (takes care of) all the:
potential rare PC flukes
a unit run that was too lucky
user "edited" the actual CPU time or benchmark
etc..
By applying the above procedure on each protein/procedure pair independently, we remove the effect of the protein properties (length, etc..) and procedure complexity from the equation.

The end result of this is the equivalent of a quorum of thousands of WUs of the same protein/procedure. No participant will lose credit, and the few questionable cases will be automatically adjusted in line downwards (thus saving the huge ongoing task of identification/verification/clarification). The total credit will end up being consistent with the actual work done (the widgets) while the unit price (dollar per widget) is fixed. Equality, and hopefully peace restored.

Jose,
I asked you about the Tallbill proposal. You never answer to a direct question, do you.

I am answering why I think the proposal can be workable. But if you and your friends only came to this thread to continue banging your heads and pick up a fight with me . Then , it takes two to fight.

I wil ignore you as a person who only wants to fight and not find a solution to the issues. But , warning, I will react to your attempts to flame here with the same passion that I have.


The time has come to look for solutions. Some reasonable, working and fair compromises have to be reached .

If you want to stay in your purist high horse ..you are welcome but then thon comkplaim where the only reaction you get is scorn.

In fact you are very smart in the way to know how push people to react, to become nervous and after a nervous breakdown to say bad words which will be used after. But at this game, we will also be two.
We hear you here for weeks, saying you are agaisnt BOINC, open source, credits, Rosetta must run outside BOINC, ...
Maybe. But then what are you still doing here?

Keeping track of some rabblerousers.

Hold up let me get a picture !

Saenger and Jose agree on a possible way to backdate the credit system !;-)

carl, I'm afraid your shutter speed isn't fast enough to capture that moment. LOLLOLOLOL

Specially since the moment never happened. :)

The issue is closed: No Backtracking.

OK, but getting 30 more or remove you 30 is exactly the same, isn't it?
You always answer by something else, I give up for today (if I can).

Hi Thierry,

what he is saying is this: if you get a quorum of all work units done then there is neither a levelling to the top nor one to the bottom but a levelling on a quorum of what everybody contributed and claimed therefore. As it is levelled like a median function, i.e. cutting off rough outliers, it is a level "mildly adjusted" to the probable "true" mean value.

O.K., I don't care which way it is done and I only want peace restored, but anyway: it may turn out that there are

A) so many people using only the stock client and

B) enough undervalued Linux machines

that the levelling is more or less equal or only a little higher than what would have been a levelling to the bottom, but:

the continuously undervalued Linux people (I am not, no need to look for that and am only in here shortly) will also geth their share, at least backdated to February and that definitely shows some spirit of acknowledging a contribution that would only have been valued adequately once the new credit system is in charge.

So I think that is something worth trying and a good proposal.

[Edited for spelling]

. . slipping. . .

Let's keep it on topic about the idea of granting additional credit to those who used the standard client. The end result would be the same as if everyone had used the optimized client (or as close as is possible).

---

OK, but getting 30 more or remove you 30 is exactly the same, isn't it?
You always answer by something else, I give up for today (if I can).

Hi Thierry,

what he is saying is this: if you get a quorum of all work units done then there is neither a levelling to the top nor one to the bottom but a levelling on a quorum of what everybody contributed and claimed therefore. As it is levelled like a median function, i.e. cutting off rough outliers, it is a level "mildly adjusted" to the probable "true" mean value.

O.K., I don't care which way it is done and I only want peace restored, but anyway: it may turn out that there are

A) so many people using only the stock client and

B) enough undervalued Linux machines

that the levelling is more or less equal or only a little higher than what would have been a levelling to the bottom, but:

the continuously undervalued Linux people (I am not, no need to look for that and am only in here shortly) will also geth their share, at least backdated to February and that definitely shows some spirit of acknowledging a contribution that would only have been valued adequately once the new credit system is in charge.

So I think that is something worth trying and a good proposal.

[Edited for spelling]

Thanks Christoph.
In fact, that's what is just done at Einstein. That's really OK for me.

OK, but getting 30 more or remove you 30 is exactly the same, isn't it?
You always answer by something else, I give up for today (if I can).

Hi Thierry,

what he is saying is this: if you get a quorum of all work units done then there is neither a levelling to the top nor one to the bottom but a levelling on a quorum of what everybody contributed and claimed therefore. As it is levelled like a median function, i.e. cutting off rough outliers, it is a level "mildly adjusted" to the probable "true" mean value.

O.K., I don't care which way it is done and I only want peace restored, but anyway: it may turn out that there are

A) so many people using only the stock client and

B) enough undervalued Linux machines

that the levelling is more or less equal or only a little higher than what would have been a levelling to the bottom, but:

the continuously undervalued Linux people (I am not, no need to look for that and am only in here shortly) will also geth their share, at least backdated to February and that definitely shows some spirit of acknowledging a contribution that would only have been valued adequately once the new credit system is in charge.

So I think that is something worth trying and a good proposal.

[Edited for spelling]

Lets have this clear.

Nothing in what I proposed can be constured to mean that the old credits are to be edited. The formula I proposed is for obtaining the correction factors for the new work credits.

Backtracking is an ex post facto applications of rules and ius unfair. Furthermore the issue is CLOSED with Dr Bakers word to the community that there is no backtracking.

Backtracking is an ex post facto applications of rules and ius unfair. Furthermore the issue is CLOSED with Dr Bakers word to the community that there is no backtracking.

Bact crediting was the idea that the new work unit system would be applied to past results, which would have changed the credits granted to those who used optimized clients.

This is a different idea, to make it as if everyone had used the optimized client.

Let's keep it focued on that idea, pros and cons, nothing personal or I'm going to have a busy morning.

---

From Saenger:

Jose,
the original post was about backtracking.
Only in the edit he said: "OK, then not"
So if you want to keep the spirit of the original poster alive, this is about backtracking.

---

Backtracking is an ex post facto applications of rules and ius unfair. Furthermore the issue is CLOSED with Dr Bakers word to the community that there is no backtracking.

Bact crediting was the idea that the new work unit system would be applied to past results, which would have changed the credits granted to those who used optimized clients.

This is a different idea, to make it as if everyone had used the optimized client.

Let's keep it focued on that idea, pros and cons, nothing personal or I'm going to have a busy morning.

Don't be afraid, it's already 08:00 pm here ;-)

Backtracking is an ex post facto applications of rules and ius unfair. Furthermore the issue is CLOSED with Dr Bakers word to the community that there is no backtracking.

Bact crediting was the idea that the new work unit system would be applied to past results, which would have changed the credits granted to those who used optimized clients.

This is a different idea, to make it as if everyone had used the optimized client.

Let's keep it focued on that idea, pros and cons, nothing personal or I'm going to have a busy morning.

Anything that change the old credits is back trackig. My proposal is for those new credits to have a comparable value. But if you even sugest re calculating the old credits of the people that used stock clients that is backtracking at its worst.

From Thierry:

Jose,
We are standard BOINCers. We don't want any flame. We have some requests. We will defend them. There is a lot of user behind us. We have nothing to loose in the credits changes.

---

Backtracking is an ex post facto applications of rules and ius unfair. Furthermore the issue is CLOSED with Dr Bakers word to the community that there is no backtracking.

Bact crediting was the idea that the new work unit system would be applied to past results, which would have changed the credits granted to those who used optimized clients.

This is a different idea, to make it as if everyone had used the optimized client.

Let's keep it focued on that idea, pros and cons, nothing personal or I'm going to have a busy morning.

Changing the old credits of those who used the optimized clients is backtraking too.

The main reason to equalize credits up instead of down, is that a lot of top numbers were achieved using optimized clients, some obviously from before february. If we equalize down, it'll be much harder for people to catch people up at the top. However, if we equalize up, it'll let people catch up on the scoreboard at the higher pace.

Just my .02, and glad to see some people making sense of the idea.

---

Thierry, what kind of unpleasant truth have you said that demanded modding?

Backtracking is an ex post facto applications of rules and ius unfair. Furthermore the issue is CLOSED with Dr Bakers word to the community that there is no backtracking.

Bact crediting was the idea that the new work unit system would be applied to past results, which would have changed the credits granted to those who used optimized clients.

This is a different idea, to make it as if everyone had used the optimized client.

Let's keep it focued on that idea, pros and cons, nothing personal or I'm going to have a busy morning.

Exactly, this idea still works regardless of the backtracking. By raising levels up equal to the optimized clients, and then equalizing them, it gives everyone a chance to move up in the scores.

---