Since when is crunching a requirement to post here? Many of the folks who instigated the changes to the credit system crunched nothing, or very little.

Don't you agree that the changes to the credit system were necessary?

What does your question have to do with my comment?

To address yours, no, not necessary. I would put it in the "nice to have" column. I don't think chasing off 2000 high powered machines was worth it, and the science has suffered.

I'm not sure if this is on-topic or not. Mods - if not, please move rather than deleting (even if just quote, copy and paste into new thread). ta.

Zombie, I don't think they were chased off, certainly not directly by the credit system anyway, and there was a massive influx of new hosts that were brought in immedately after the new credit system was introduced so it appears that many silent people (and some who posted) were waiting for this.

I posted that in reply to your post because you suggest that some people 'instigated the changes'. I don't believe it was down to anyone instigating the change - the project team instigated it. No-one requested the current credit system - there were calls for a fair system but it was David Kim's system that was implemented. The longer the change to a fair system was delayed, the more of a mess it would have been.

IMO the new credit system was/is vital to getting the kind of CPU power the project desire as the previous system was flawed.

---

Keep the discussion as closely focused on the New Credit System as possible.

If you have a 4 paragraph rant with 1 sentence dealing with the topic, delete the 4 paragraph rant before posting.

Be careful with the terms you use to describe others. Years ago, the term "credit whores" was a badge of honor. We were the ones that chose DVD players based on how little they used the cpu. Figured out if extra ram provided extra credit. If a critical app ate up too much cpu time, then we found another system to run it on. Even what I'd consider praise is considered an insult by others.

Be polite. Be constructive.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Tymbrimi
ROSETTA@home FAQ
Moderator Contact

The new system is far better then the old one, and it could be improved even more, if the granting will be delayed until a significant number of decoys are beck for a WU. It would not hurt anyone, but would weed out any over- or underclaiming (and granting) of the fast crunchers ("opt." vs. Lin.).

One good thing that was shown by it was the lack of optimization of the application for PPC. "Good thing" is not the fact as such, that's bad, but the fact that it got attention, and I hope it can be solved by those who can deal with the programming and compiling necessary for better suitability for PPC.

Edited for lack of post to answer to ;)

From Zombie67 on Sept 15:

I posted that in reply to your post because you suggest that some people 'instigated the changes'. I don't believe it was down to anyone instigating the change - the project team instigated it. No-one requested the current credit system - there were calls for a fair system but it was David Kim's system that was implemented. The longer the change to a fair system was delayed, the more of a mess it would have been.

IMO the new credit system was/is vital to getting the kind of CPU power the project desire as the previous system was flawed.

You're contradicting yourself. First you say no one instigated the change, then you say there were calls for a fair system.

Calling for a fair system = instigating change.

The project team did not instgate it. They responded to the people who were calling for a new system. Reactive, not proactive.

And back to my original point, many of those calling for a new system had contributed little or nothing.
[...]

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Tymbrimi
ROSETTA@home FAQ
Moderator Contact

From Saenger on Sept 15th:

Please don't invent conspiracy theories.
If anyone got special treatment and tacid approval, it was XS &Co., those who wanted a fair credit system got censored continously. And they got slandered and vilified by those who didn't want a fair system. Imho there is and was a clear bias from the project towards [Edit by T.M.: those not using the standard Boinc client.]
I know, that XS and yourself did very much for the science, but I can't quantify it in a meaningful manner up to the credit change, as the credits were not comparable before the change.

Wow. Talk about illustrating my point (which was deleted). Perspective Heads: Completely removed. Perspective Tails: Left for all to see. Heck, even reposted by the moderator. I will say it again, one side of this debate was clearly favored, and it's obviously not the one described above...

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

ok everyone, can we discuss the new vs old credit systems here (i.e. on topic!)? What's anyone's thoughts on the old vs new systems?

---

ok everyone, can we discuss the new vs old credit systems here (i.e. on topic!)? What's anyone's thoughts on the old vs new systems?

new one sucks

---

SETI.USA

The new one works fine for me.

From Mage492:

I rather like the new credit system, to be honest. I think the whole optimized thing came about due to the fact that certain hardware and OSs did not claim what they, by rights, should have. It was rather irritating, seeing my scores with my Linux machine and knowing they could be higher.

(Note: What I said above does not apply to benchmark-inflation by editing the client info files. I never really approved of that...)

What I like about the new system is that I feel my Linux box and Mac PPC are being adequately rewarded for the work being done. Yes, I said that my Mac is being rewarded fairly. In the end, "effort" doesn't cure diseases. Models do. So, if my Mac can't put out as many models, I feel that it's justified that I get less credit.

So, I've been both helped and hurt by the new credit system. My overall RAC did take a hit, admittedly, because my Mac lost more than my Linux box gained, but I feel that my credits now represent something, when I never really had that feeling before.

I think the main thing that we all need to keep in mind is that we, the crunchers, don't make the decisions. That's for the admins to decide. We can respectfully suggest a certain course of action, but we can't make their decisions for them. What we can decide is whether we crunch this project or not. Me? When the dust finally settles, I'll be here. This project is too important, to me, to give up.

...

Don't be angry at those who like the new credit system. I don't see this as a "winner-loser" situation. Technically, as I mentioned earlier, I would be a "loser", because of my Mac. I don't feel that way, though. I'm just thankful that my contribution is being measured for what it really is. A lot of people (myself included) had never realized that they weren't really using the full PPC capabilities, until the change. Maybe this will lead to an improved Mac client, in a couple of months. Who knows?

So please, let's have peace again. This has always been such a fine community, in the past. Let's bring it back to its focus: helping people put their idle time to good use, and learning new things about both biology and computers, together.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

Since when is crunching a requirement to post here? Many of the folks who instigated the changes to the credit system crunched nothing, or very little.

Don't you agree that the changes to the credit system were necessary?

What does your question have to do with my comment?

To address yours, no, not necessary. I would put it in the "nice to have" column. I don't think chasing off 2000 high powered machines was worth it, and the science has suffered.

I'm not sure if this is on-topic or not. Mods - if not, please move rather than deleting (even if just quote, copy and paste into new thread). ta.

Zombie, I don't think they were chased off, certainly not directly by the credit system anyway, and there was a massive influx of new hosts that were brought in immedately after the new credit system was introduced so it appears that many silent people (and some who posted) were waiting for this.

I posted that in reply to your post because you suggest that some people 'instigated the changes'. I don't believe it was down to anyone instigating the change - the project team instigated it. No-one requested the current credit system - there were calls for a fair system but it was David Kim's system that was implemented. The longer the change to a fair system was delayed, the more of a mess it would have been.

IMO the new credit system was/is vital to getting the kind of CPU power the project desire as the previous system was flawed.

I don't think the changed credit system generated the new hosts.

It was more likely a coincidence that the new credit system was implemented just as Predictor shut down, and those folks needed a place. The second spike (of short duration) was when SETI ran out of work last week.

It truly points out that Rosetta is 2nd choice for those people, not first.

As for the 2000 CPUs that went away, that *could* have been avoided, but since it wasn't, the project made the decision that they didn't need them. No action on their part to retain the CPUs was a defacto decision to let them go.

---

Nemesis n. A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent.

ok everyone, can we discuss the new vs old credit systems here (i.e. on topic!)? What's anyone's thoughts on the old vs new systems?

new one sucks

you know what you're saying?

If you think so, why don't you tell the reasons?
There are many people who've worked on it. Don't insult their work without expressing your productive opinions.

The new system is one which depends on the actual work we do.
Thus if you think it's no good, then people might think that you want credits more than you should be granted. No one regards it's fair.

Anyway you'd better to tell the reasons.

Thanks for reading,
suguruhirahara

To Saenger and Zombie67:

I started this thread to allow the discussion of a topic, and not allow it to break down into war because of use of words that are taken as insults from one side or the other. The terms used do not bother me; nor do the terms they can be claimed to represent. Perhaps I'm being overcautious. But if it helps keep everyone focused on the topic instead of trying to find sneaky ways to insult each other or find sneaky ways to interpret innocent things said by the other side as insults, then I will have succeeded. Although, from the look of things, I have as much chance of getting people to stop referring to me as "Empty" or M.T. <smile>

If you want to know my personal bias in this issue, I'll readily admit that I'm biased against those who write in ways that force me to delete, move, or delete and edit quotes of their posts so we can maintain peace here.

Again.. focus on the topic. And to get back to topic, perhaps the past will help.
I see a number of items missing from the discussion that were brought up in previous discussions. When did the requests for a fair credit system start? Who on the XS team requested a credit for work done credit system? How many have requested a fair credit system since Rosetta started? And why, if XS and others left for reasons other than the credit system, does the immaterial issue of the credit system keep getting brought up in connection with the departure?

Be civil, be polite, and try to be constructive.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Tymbrimi
ROSETTA@home FAQ
Moderator Contact

Wow. So you get to post about these things, but when we do, you censor them.

I see a number of items missing from the discussion that were brought up in previous discussions. When did the requests for a fair credit system start? Who on the XS team requested a credit for work done credit system?

Huh? Where did you get that? It was not team XS that requested a change to the system. At least not that I saw here.

And why, if XS and others left for reasons other than the credit system, does the immaterial issue of the credit system keep getting brought up in connection with the departure?

Because some people have a problem with critical thinking. The issue is that one group insulted another, and the powers that be gave tacit approval with their silence. *That* is why XS left. They said so over an over. But people keep trying to act like that never happened, and so need another reason.

Be civil, be polite, and try to be constructive.

Everything I've seen posted so far has been.

Here is something constructive: Stop trying to censor people. It does nothing but cause chaos, makes people on *both* sides angry, and drives people away. If you disagee, say so, and explain why.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

I agree that removing posts is disruptive. The other way to look at it is...

Making posts which require moderation is disruptive. It may not have been your comments which brought the thread to a state which required such extreme action. We take the time to EMail posts which we specifically delete. A number of posts went down with the deleted thread. But the substance of the original poster's topic remains. That's about all we can hope for.

Please try to allocate as much distain for the posters that require moderation as you do for the moderators... and don't post about either, as we will have to delete such a post.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

SIMAP is moving to a new credit system. Credits based on work done, no benchmarks used. Also, no averaging of claimed credits. They also seem to be constantly monitoring the amount of credit per work to keep the numbers competitive with other projects.

How are they doing it, and should we follow suit?

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

[quote]Huh? Where did you get that? It was not team XS that requested a change to the system. At least not that I saw here.

15239

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Tymbrimi
ROSETTA@home FAQ
Moderator Contact

From Jose Sept 16th:

I don't think the changed credit system generated the new hosts.

It was more likely a coincidence that the new credit system was implemented just as Predictor shut down, and those folks needed a place. The second spike (of short duration) was when SETI ran out of work last week.

It truly points out that Rosetta is 2nd choice for those people, not first.

As for the 2000 CPUs that went away, that *could* have been avoided, but since it wasn't, the project made the decision that they didn't need them. No action on their part to retain the CPUs was a defacto decision to let them go.

Add to that DIMES server shut down and other projects had server problems.

[...] [paragraph removed - T.M.]

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Tymbrimi
ROSETTA@home FAQ
Moderator Contact

From Zombie67:

[quote]Huh? Where did you get that? It was not team XS that requested a change to the system. At least not that I saw here.

15239

Ah, that was before my time. [...] [Sentence removed. T.M.]

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Tymbrimi
ROSETTA@home FAQ
Moderator Contact

My opinion on the new credit system.

It is even for everyone, though we can apply our influence on it the effect is not that great in the scheme of things.

Though it could do with improvement (though it does not need to be implemented intstantly, it can be tested with different way at Ralph for a while)

1) First as has been mentioned numerous times.
... Putting the first xxx tasks into pending ...
That will stop the high claims and low claims seen (I've seen it in my own results).


2) Figuring out if an internal timer system or similar can be used to smooth (centralise) out the statistical distibution of granted credit for a client.
... This would put us back on track to a 'true work done' credit score as opposed to the 'assumed work done' we have now.

---

Team mauisun.org

ok everyone, can we discuss the new vs old credit systems here (i.e. on topic!)? What's anyone's thoughts on the old vs new systems?

new one sucks

That doesn't help. Can you clarify why you think that?

FC: I agree entirely. Ideally I think the granted credit should be a rolling average for all decoys in a WU until that WU is complete.

---