Another discussion on the New Credit System

Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile carl.h
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Dec 05
Posts: 555
Credit: 183,449
RAC: 0
Message 27827 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 20:00:43 UTC

More likely stuck to a secretary`s dress <whistle> Pass me that Cigar...
Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.
ID: 27827 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Bob Guy

Send message
Joined: 7 Oct 05
Posts: 39
Credit: 24,895
RAC: 0
Message 27832 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 20:08:07 UTC - in response to Message 27736.  
Last modified: 20 Sep 2006, 20:09:52 UTC

It is unethical to change the rules ex post facto. In fact, it is illegal to makes such laws in the US.

Wrong! The Court and the Legislature can do just about as they please as long as it's constitutional. I'd like you to quote the constitutional requirement that you appear to believe applies.

In California (a couple of years ago) a law was passed that required smog tests in perpetuity for all vehicles manufactured in 1976 and later. Previously the law had been that any vehicle 30 years old was classified as 'antique' and was exempted from many of the ordinary requirements including smog testing and maintaining an absolutely stock engine.

I owned (still own) one of those vehicles, a 1977 Trans-Am 6.6L Limited Edition, which I had kept in the hope that it's value would increase as it passed it's 30th year. This law made my investment greatly decrease in value since the car is not so desirable to collectors owing mainly to the smog and stock engine requirement. If this is not 'ex post facto' perhaps you could explain the difference. The law has not been challenged because it is considered constitutional by all legal experts. I will allow that California is known to have a slightly deranged political climate and legal system.

The majority of stock users had no chance to compete...

Sure they did. Just upgrade the client like everyone else with the "competition" mindset.

This is the weakest argument that has been made since the beginning of all the credit fuss. It is transparently simple to create a Boinc client that 'evens the playing field' with respect to AMD-Intel-P4-Linux WITHOUT the 3X credit inflation. Yet, no one did this. I think we all know why.
ID: 27832 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile carl.h
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Dec 05
Posts: 555
Credit: 183,449
RAC: 0
Message 27836 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 20:16:57 UTC

Bob, thanks for the input.

The optimised / not argument has been laid to rest, RIP, due to emotions it brings out and the fact with the new credit system it is somewhat history.
Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.
ID: 27836 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
zombie67 [MM]
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Feb 06
Posts: 316
Credit: 6,347,141
RAC: 1
Message 27867 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 21:39:11 UTC - in response to Message 27832.  

It is unethical to change the rules ex post facto. In fact, it is illegal to makes such laws in the US.


Wrong! The Court and the Legislature can do just about as they please as long as it's constitutional. I'd like you to quote the constitutional requirement that you appear to believe applies.



Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution: No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.


The majority of stock users had no chance to compete...

Sure they did. Just upgrade the client like everyone else with the "competition" mindset.

This is the weakest argument that has been made since the beginning of all the credit fuss. It is transparently simple to create a Boinc client that 'evens the playing field' with respect to AMD-Intel-P4-Linux WITHOUT the 3X credit inflation. Yet, no one did this. I think we all know why.


The point I made, was that parity could be achieved, and people had the option *at the time*. So ex post facto does not apply.

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA
ID: 27867 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Jose

Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 06
Posts: 820
Credit: 48,297
RAC: 0
Message 27870 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 21:49:27 UTC - in response to Message 27815.  

While I was closing all these browser windows I also saw the following from Dekim at Ralph. It appears to the be post immediated before the one I posted:

18) Message boards : : Current tests : New crediting system
Posted 35 days ago by dekim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm extracting the archived data and will see what I can do. What do other users think about trying to backdate the credits using the new work based system?


Tony:

The man saw what he could do and realized the mother of all firestorms and a march to Baker Lab to hang him by the toes was a distinct posibility.

He did what he promised : he tried to do what he could. Once he creted the databases he needed , he also did some maintenance ( Those files are huge ) so nothing nefarious. ( Man you and Carl have me worried...you are starting to think alike ...eeeck lol )

Asto what people thought about backdating: Do you really want to restart that :P ?

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato
ID: 27870 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Biggles
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Sep 05
Posts: 49
Credit: 102,114
RAC: 0
Message 27879 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 22:46:51 UTC

Jose, my point about backdating contained another option, that of starting again from scratch. If anybody can show me that I am wrong in my belief that competition is more difficult because of the new credit system, please do so.

Vietnam Soldiers said this:
I think that the biggest issue a lot of people have with backdating the credit system is not in what the numbers would show but in that it would signal yet another "giving in" to the same people that pushed the "cross BOINC parity" issue. For myself, I could care less. The work I did stands on it's own no matter what point value is given to it.
I also think many here would be quite shocked to see the outcome of backdating.
What they tend to forget is that at least in the case of XS, up until mid April all we were using was the stock boinc client.
All that would change for us would be any points from mid April to the end of August.
Do you really think that would change the standings as far as XS is concerned?
I don't think so. XS would still be in first place, just the numbers would be lower but then again so would FreeDC's, the Dutch Power Cows and I expect many others.


To address these points, what is the problem with giving in if doing so results in a fairer and even playing field with just scores?

Besides, even if we only could backdate to February, that would encompass all the work done with highly optimised clients like 5.5.0, which I think wasn't available until March or April.

And I don't think it would change the standings at all. But it would make it possible for teams and users that are just starting out (3 new teams and 106 new users today) to catch up since they wouldn't have nine months of overinflated credits (we can agree that pretty much everybody who used a non-standard BOINC client (including me!) has had overinflated credit, right?) to have to make up. That makes it fairer for all future participants of the project.

I said either backdate OR zero the stats. The new system has enshrined the past for years to come, and that's still damaging to the project. It was only half of the work of fixing it to change the credit granting system.

Oh and for what it's worth, it should be possible to backdate credit since the beginning of the project, past February and despite host merging. Running a few old work units again to obtain an average for that series of work units and then grant credit based on that average.

There is just no incentive for a team to make a big push on Rosetta with the numbers (although unlikely the leaderboards) being so badly skewed. Think about Overclockers UK for instance. They were the SETI Classic winners, have a sizable BOINC team and a large Folding team. They have the horsepower to be top producers on Rosetta if they were to turn to it. They also have 1.4 million credits and are sitting in 47th place. For them to make up 73 million credits to catch XS would take years. For them to catch up 25-30 million credits (very quick and rough estimate of what XS would have post-backdating) is doable inside a year.

A backdating would not substantially change the leaderboards. Most teams and users would remain in the current positions. But the credit levels would be appropriate and would stimulate competition once again. If the admins are not going to backdate, which appears to be the case, then they should at least start again from scratch with the new credit system.

The new credit system was a step forward and grants credit in a fairer manner, and I don't think anybody argues against that, apart from perhaps Mac owners, but it just happens to be the case that Macs aren't very good at Rosetta.

But the new system is crippling competition. Only half the job is done. I just want to see it through so the project can regain some of it's credibility.
ID: 27879 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Nemesis
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 06
Posts: 149
Credit: 21,395
RAC: 0
Message 27881 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 22:54:50 UTC

This sounds like the SETI people who came in 4 years after it started and wanted credits zeroed so they could catch up to, or the ones who didn't migrate from Classic to BOINC until the last minute, then cried that they wouldn't be able to catch up because all those other folks had a head start.

DOH

The teams that were here first, and with the most power, are in the lead. Those that weren't aren't, and they better get crunching if they want to catch the leaders.


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


ID: 27881 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
XS_Vietnam_Soldiers

Send message
Joined: 11 Jan 06
Posts: 240
Credit: 2,880,653
RAC: 0
Message 27882 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 23:06:57 UTC - in response to Message 27881.  
Last modified: 20 Sep 2006, 23:12:12 UTC

This sounds like the SETI people who came in 4 years after it started and wanted credits zeroed so they could catch up to, or the ones who didn't migrate from Classic to BOINC until the last minute, then cried that they wouldn't be able to catch up because all those other folks had a head start.

DOH

The teams that were here first, and with the most power, are in the lead. Those that weren't aren't, and they better get crunching if they want to catch the leaders.


An interesting point. When XS got into Rosetta in January 2006 we were months behind some teams here.We had to overcome that and we did it by going from the orginal 65 members to a max of over 600 registered members.We added machines. I went from running 2 to running a max of 6. Now a lot of those didn't crunch on a regular basis, a lot just came at our attempt at a million point day and then stopped.
The point is we had to grow to catch the top teams and that option is just as open today as it was back then.
Recruit and add machines and your output will go up just as ours did.
The answer is in how much your willing to put into what you want to achieve.
Where we shined was in the group that belonged to the team.
DDTUNG: close to 100 machines
Windforce: 38 machines
Serlv: up to 20 machines from his house
XSTM: a group of 10-15 guys with close to 50 machines
VNS: 14-20 machines
and many more..
If you want to compete at the top level you have to pay the piper.

ID: 27882 · Rating: 9.9920072216264E-15 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Astro
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 05
Posts: 987
Credit: 500,253
RAC: 0
Message 27883 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 23:09:33 UTC
Last modified: 20 Sep 2006, 23:15:22 UTC

@ biggles, to help you, I've found this post which shows TMR (Tetsuji Maverick Rai) made the first optimized Applications for Windows on/about the 31st May 2005. Then he came out with the first optimized Boinc clients on 2nd Jun 2005 as can be seen here. Then 10 days later he released his 4.45 Boinc Clients.

If you want I can look up Crunch3rs' first, but I was in the nov/dec 2005 time frame,so with regards to your statements. Optimized Boinc clients for all platforms were around before Rosetta started.

PS. Optimized apps for linux have been available since nearly the start of boinc.
ID: 27883 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Astro
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 05
Posts: 987
Credit: 500,253
RAC: 0
Message 27885 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 23:12:24 UTC
Last modified: 20 Sep 2006, 23:16:22 UTC

Reading this thread will even show you Crunch3rs' thoughts(at that time) on Rosetta, and how his optimized Boinc client 5.2.13 was affecting it.

NOTE: This thread is dated the 17 of December 2005
ID: 27885 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
XS_Vietnam_Soldiers

Send message
Joined: 11 Jan 06
Posts: 240
Credit: 2,880,653
RAC: 0
Message 27888 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 23:19:08 UTC - in response to Message 27885.  
Last modified: 20 Sep 2006, 23:22:52 UTC

Reading this thread will even show you Crunch3rs' thoughts(at that time) on Rosetta, and how his optimized Boinc client 5.2.13 was affecting it.

NOTE: This thread is dated the 17 of December 2005

This presupposes that everyone went to the SETI page and saw his comments.
I was given a link to the posted files where there was no commentary.

I would like to ask that this voting system be turned off. It is being abused to the point of lunacy by a few individuals..
Or do I have to bring a 100 people here to show you just how stupid it really is?
ID: 27888 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Astro
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 05
Posts: 987
Credit: 500,253
RAC: 0
Message 27890 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 23:23:27 UTC - in response to Message 27888.  

Reading this thread will even show you Crunch3rs' thoughts(at that time) on Rosetta, and how his optimized Boinc client 5.2.13 was affecting it.

NOTE: This thread is dated the 17 of December 2005

This presupposes that everyone went to the SETI page and saw his comments.
I was given a link to the posted files where there was no commentary.

XS VS Biggles is saying that backdating to Feb will get rid of most the skewing. I'm showing him it won't as it's been around since day one of the project.

THe only way to straighten out the "scoreboard" is a complete reset, not backdating.
ID: 27890 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
XS_Vietnam_Soldiers

Send message
Joined: 11 Jan 06
Posts: 240
Credit: 2,880,653
RAC: 0
Message 27891 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 23:27:26 UTC - in response to Message 27890.  

Reading this thread will even show you Crunch3rs' thoughts(at that time) on Rosetta, and how his optimized Boinc client 5.2.13 was affecting it.

NOTE: This thread is dated the 17 of December 2005

This presupposes that everyone went to the SETI page and saw his comments.
I was given a link to the posted files where there was no commentary.

XS VS Biggles is saying that backdating to Feb will get rid of most the skewing. I'm showing him it won't as it's been around since day one of the project.

THe only way to straighten out the "scoreboard" is a complete reset, not backdating.

Speaking just for myself, I would have no issue with backdating my credits to day one.That is me speaking strickly for myself and not for XS.
Starting from zero says to those that what you did was worthless and insults their effort.
Sort of like:" Up till now this was all a trial, now we'll do the real thing"
ID: 27891 · Rating: 9.9920072216264E-15 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Astro
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 05
Posts: 987
Credit: 500,253
RAC: 0
Message 27892 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 23:31:16 UTC - in response to Message 27891.  
Last modified: 20 Sep 2006, 23:32:03 UTC

Speaking just for myself, I would have no issue with backdating my credits to day one.That is me speaking strickly for myself and not for XS.
Starting from zero says to those that what you did was worthless and insults their effort.
Sort of like:" Up till now this was all a trial, now we'll do the real thing"


I hope everyone noticed, my first thought on backdating was voiced in this thread, and that I voted NO because it wouldn't do what it was intended.

Also, I made no mention of my position on a complete reset. I just wanted to show that a complete reset is the ONLY way. I don't think it's been ruled out as a point of discussion, so we could discuss it if someone wants to. Just keep it clean, please. We'd need a new thread of course.

tony
ID: 27892 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Jose

Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 06
Posts: 820
Credit: 48,297
RAC: 0
Message 27894 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 23:35:58 UTC - in response to Message 27888.  


I would like to ask that this voting system be turned off. It is being abused to the point of lunacy by a few individuals..
Or do I have to bring a 100 people here to show you just how stupid it really is?


I think the time is getting close for some people to be taught what can happen when disciplined group of people unleash a coordinated attack.
This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato
ID: 27894 · Rating: -3 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
XS_Vietnam_Soldiers

Send message
Joined: 11 Jan 06
Posts: 240
Credit: 2,880,653
RAC: 0
Message 27895 - Posted: 20 Sep 2006, 23:39:09 UTC - in response to Message 27892.  
Last modified: 21 Sep 2006, 0:09:50 UTC

Speaking just for myself, I would have no issue with backdating my credits to day one.That is me speaking strickly for myself and not for XS.
Starting from zero says to those that what you did was worthless and insults their effort.
Sort of like:" Up till now this was all a trial, now we'll do the real thing"


I hope everyone noticed, my first thought on backdating was voiced in this thread, and that I voted NO because it wouldn't do what it was intended.

Also, I made no mention of my position on a complete reset. I just wanted to show that a complete reset is the ONLY way. I don't think it's been ruled out as a point of discussion, so we could discuss it if someone wants to. Just keep it clean, please. We'd need a new thread of course.

tony

Tony:
A complete reset may be the ONLY way if you want to only count the work that was done from today onward but what does that say to the people that busted their backside and incurred huge expenses during the first 8 months of the year?
It says what was done is worthless and they're lot of people, myself included, who would scream to the heavens were that done.
JUST me, one little guy: My monthly electric bill was an additional $150.00-$200.00 higher during that period, all atributable to running the extra PC's for rosetta. We'll forget the $15,000.00 worth of equipment that I put solely on this project during that time.
If the developers want to say that my work was not worthy, at the very least cut me a check for the extra electric that I used just for them.
That works out to app $1400.00 for 8 months.
ID: 27895 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Biggles
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Sep 05
Posts: 49
Credit: 102,114
RAC: 0
Message 27903 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 0:30:22 UTC - in response to Message 27881.  

This sounds like the SETI people who came in 4 years after it started and wanted credits zeroed so they could catch up to, or the ones who didn't migrate from Classic to BOINC until the last minute, then cried that they wouldn't be able to catch up because all those other folks had a head start.

DOH

The teams that were here first, and with the most power, are in the lead. Those that weren't aren't, and they better get crunching if they want to catch the leaders.



Wrong.

It's like people coming into SETI and thinking it unfair that the work units had gotten three times longer with the stats being counted simply by number done. That makes it three times harder to catch up with people who were there to begin with - a bit like how an awful lot of the credit done in the first year of the project was from optimised clients which overclaimed by two, three or even more times what should have been granted.

I'm not saying it's unfair people have a headstart. I'm saying it's unfair that it's a whole lot more difficult to get credit compared to what it was only a month or two back.
ID: 27903 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Biggles
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Sep 05
Posts: 49
Credit: 102,114
RAC: 0
Message 27904 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 0:46:17 UTC - in response to Message 27882.  


An interesting point. When XS got into Rosetta in January 2006 we were months behind some teams here.We had to overcome that and we did it by going from the orginal 65 members to a max of over 600 registered members.We added machines. I went from running 2 to running a max of 6. Now a lot of those didn't crunch on a regular basis, a lot just came at our attempt at a million point day and then stopped.
The point is we had to grow to catch the top teams and that option is just as open today as it was back then.


In January, the credit system was the same as it had been when those other teams started. That old credit system made it a whole lot easier for you to make up positions. Think of it this way, if the new credit system had come into effect in February, would XS have anywhere near the score they do now? No - but you would still have done the same amount of work.

Speaking just for myself, I would have no issue with backdating my credits to day one.That is me speaking strickly for myself and not for XS.
Starting from zero says to those that what you did was worthless and insults their effort.
Sort of like:" Up till now this was all a trial, now we'll do the real thing"


Starting from zero doesn't say it was worthless. The work was still done, and the sensible thing to do would be to have a snapshot of the final stats. So everybody would see that XS did more work than anyone else. Starting from zero just recognises that there's now a new credit system and counting things from that. We can't change the new credit system to fit the old one, so the other option would be to change the old one to fit the new one. And that would be backdating, which is a controversial one. But leaving things as is, and adding new credit straight on top of the old ones is a bad idea that'll have effects for years.

Tony:
A complete reset may be the ONLY way if you want to only count the work that was done from today onward but what does that say to the people that busted their backside and incurred huge expenses during the first 8 months of the year?
It says what was done is worthless and they're lot of people, myself included, who would scream to the heavens were that done.
JUST me, one little guy: My monthly electric bill was an additional $150.00-$200.00 higher during that period, all atributable to running the extra PC's for rosetta. We'll forget the $15,000.00 worth of equipment that I put solely on this project during that time.
If the developers want to say that my work was not worthy, at the very least cut me a check for the extra electric that I used just for them.
That works out to app $1400.00 for 8 months.


See above. The work was still done, as long as you got recognition for the first 8 months worth of work I don't see the problem.
ID: 27904 · Rating: -9.9920072216264E-15 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Biggles
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Sep 05
Posts: 49
Credit: 102,114
RAC: 0
Message 27905 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 0:58:19 UTC - in response to Message 27890.  

Reading this thread will even show you Crunch3rs' thoughts(at that time) on Rosetta, and how his optimized Boinc client 5.2.13 was affecting it.

NOTE: This thread is dated the 17 of December 2005

This presupposes that everyone went to the SETI page and saw his comments.
I was given a link to the posted files where there was no commentary.

XS VS Biggles is saying that backdating to Feb will get rid of most the skewing. I'm showing him it won't as it's been around since day one of the project.

THe only way to straighten out the "scoreboard" is a complete reset, not backdating.


I accept the point about it having been around from the beginning. I know optimised BOINC clients have been around since before Rosetta, but I don't remember 5.5.0 being around before about March or April. It had the biggest effect. XS VS (I think) said that XS never used optimised clients before April, if that were the case then backdating to February would completely clear XS at least of any overclaims.

As I said earlier, it shouldn't be that difficult to backdate to the beginning anyway, but even if I'm wrong in that, I'd rather see backdating to February. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would clean things up a lot, by 2/3 maybe even 3/4. I'd have thought that being as correct as possible is better than it being an all or nothing type thing.
ID: 27905 · Rating: -2 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Astro
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 05
Posts: 987
Credit: 500,253
RAC: 0
Message 27906 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 1:07:17 UTC - in response to Message 27905.  

but I don't remember 5.5.0 being around before about March or April. It had the biggest effect.
5.2.13, 5.2.14, 5.3.6, are were all around at the beginning their effects were nearly the same as 5.5.0. 5.5.0 is just the newest which includes the official boinc updates. It's not much different from us regular users moving from 5.2.6 to 5.2.13 (official) to 5.4.9 to 5.4.11. They were all designed to try to increase the credit one got when they ran the optimized seti application. If the application cut your time in half, then they tried to double your credit (older opt app versions), if they cut your time to 1/3, then they claimed 3 times. It's just that some users are using them with something other than a matching app, and claiming 3x anyway. (note: actually they tried to claim 32.29 credits/wu which was the idealized value of the reference wu (one picked from a hat), unfortunately the ref WU turned out to be a long one. The average seti wu was worth 24-25, credits and the opt claims of 32 were wrong even with the opt app, but that's a whole different story).
ID: 27906 · Rating: -1 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System



©2022 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org