OK I'm awake now.

1) I don't remember it being "discussed". I remember one user asked about it in a now deleted thread and was roasted over an open flame. If memory serves, it was Carls' thread "I'm collecting my toys and going home" thread(or something like that) that came out within hours of the new credit system leave rosetta and coming here.

Perhaps the passage of time will allow for a real discussion on the subject?

2) I don't remember the Admins ruling this option out.

3) It might not be that difficult to do. Here's how I think it could be done.

a)Create a new project on the servers, and name it "Rosetta I", then rename the current project "Rosetta II".

b) Use the archives and move all credit data dated prior to 24 August 2006 to Rosetta I. Leave all data from that point forward on Rosetta II.

c) Contact stats site and give them the new and old URL's for the stats folder for their dumps.

Tada, I think it would be done.

All the credit wouldn't then be deleted, it would be fully represented for what it is, and that's the data/credit collected with the previous credit system. Top teams would still maintain their position indefinitely and won't drop as they appear to be doing now.

tony

Sorry Tony :

2 (b) is backdating and not zeroing out. Yellow flag given for trying to revive the backdating issue.

But admiration is granted for trying to revive a dead horse

Also David Kim told us that the archives you and some of the backdaters claim exist no longer exist. So the issue is not that simple.

[ ] You have read the post.

Tony speaks about the 24th August when the new credit system went into effect and not about February 2006 (which was the possible starting date to backdate). He also does not suggest recalculating the credits (backdating) but to seperate the credits until August, 24th 2006 and after.

This is possible for sure but I don't think it will help the project.

There are problems still.

Zero aout, if you are going to zero out from the date the Rosetta II starts , not from before ( Not even a day before)

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

see a discussion has broken out.

Carl.h I'd have to think about that one. I'm not saying I support this idea. It's just something to discuss. Let's face it, the Rosetta fora record player has been skipping and stuck on Mod issues for a while. LOL I don't have enough puters to even be a contender (not to mention my multi project stance), but some do care, or atleast I think they do.

I`m never going to be top twenty material either but my team count and I`m part of that. The credits are a handy benchmark for measuring day to day output and also seeing if anything is wrong.

The fact that due to optimisations the points are skewed right across the range of Boinc projects suggests to me that whilst calling for one project to show a correct score one must maintain it be done across all, especially for those people who are cross project.

So with your suggestion in my mind perhaps we should call for a Boinc I and a Boinc II.

This of course would be a vast undertaking at present impossible due to scoring systems on other projects, nevertheless it is the fairest and that is what I hear everyone calling for.

To the guy who started DC a couple of months ago this would seem absolutely fair and correct but what about the guy who`s been solidly working at Seti for maybe 6 years, never touched an opti and will possibly feel his 6 years will end in some dusty archive somewhere ? He`s got the same machine as the new guy, the new guy is on level pegging with him....Is that fair ?

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

RE: Carl's comments... I just wanted to point out that SETI has already undergone such a point system change. They USED to just count number of WUs processed. And they had the same problem with varience in WU size that Rosetta has, but to a lessor degree. They had WUs full of terrestrial (i.e. loud) noise that made some WUs unable to process very much. There were cases where a WU could finish in a half hour, rather then a day. But your work was counted in WUs. They redid the credit system when they went to BOINC. They retained the old number of WUs crunched, and added the number of BOINC credits.

---

Add this signature to your EMail:
Running Microsoft's "System Idle Process" will never help cure cancer, AIDS nor Alzheimer's. But running Rosetta@home just might!
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

If you look at the very bottom left hand side of my signature, you'll see my 6201 seti "classic" wus. and in the rest you'll find my seti stats under boinc. However, you won't see my Pre Seti enhanced work seperated from the post seti enhanced period. Pre ehanced included data from skewed credit, post does as well, but to a lesser degree.

Doh, I'm so used to unchecking the sig box

quit laughing

---

A few of the ex FADders still include those points in Stats data sigs...

I`m confused, Feet1st said they were added together, yet Tony say`s his are seperate...It maybe me not understanding clearly...

Either way....Would you find the scenario of the new guy and old on equal footing acceptable ? If the whole of Boinc credits were reset Tony`s way ?

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

I didn't mean to say they were added TOGETHER. I was trying to say that a second, and separate field was "added" to display the new credits.

---

Add this signature to your EMail:
Running Microsoft's "System Idle Process" will never help cure cancer, AIDS nor Alzheimer's. But running Rosetta@home just might!
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

It doesn`t matter much except as an example feet1st...

The fact of the matter is that to equal it up fairly it would need to be done across the board of Boinc projects, but first each project must have a system of fair credits.

There were other suggestions early on, such as Rosetta coming off of Boinc altogether which would have made the addressing of credits easier and possibly more acceptable if admin had stated it was pulling out of it and starting the project/credits over. One of the first voices I heard this from was Jose.

I`ve done 5 1/2 years of DC, yet I do not wave a credit sig (not that it`s bad or wrong to). I honestly couldn`t tell you where I was or how many points in UD, FAD or even Rosetta yet I`ve put plenty of time, effort and money into them. I know I put in all I can at the end of the day and my team appreciates me, it`s nice to know I can go and look up those points whenever but ultimately it`s not why I joined DC.

I don`t believe there is a good solution, we may have to live with what the project decides from time to time and they will do what they believe is best ...for the project. I firmly believe it`s one of those no win situations we all have to live with, it may not be 100% fair or right but what in life is ?

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Stop Rosetta. Start Rosetta-2.

---

dag
--Finding aliens is cool, but understanding the structure of proteins is useful.

Nicely discussed there dag.....I can really understand all your points !

Would you care to elaborate your feelings ?

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

I really suspect some users don't post here for fear of having their ideas berated. I'm always glad to see new users post. Even when I don't agree with their statements. We're all at different levels of understanding. We'll all be dead long before we know it all.

Although, from a statistics standpoint, I like the idea of doing a Rosetta I / Rosetta II thing, I'm curious about something. I was briefly involved in SETI (This was after the BOINC transition had taken place, but things hadn't cooled down, quite yet.). I remember a lot of users there were quite angry about having their scores "archived". Aside from that, though, what was the net effect on production of making the change? Maybe we can learn something from their example (good or bad).

Personally, I would love to zero things and start over (As mentioned, there's a user who started on the same day that I did, who got more than 100k credits using a single P4. Either I'm doing something really wrong, with mine, and can't get that much output (Mine's a 24/7 cruncher, aside from a small script that runs for maybe 2 minutes a week.), or the numbers were fluffed.

The only thing about this that upsets me is that it will literally take me years to catch up to someone who, by rights, shouldn't have been ahead of me, to begin with. I've worked very hard for my ~200 RAC, and I'll be working hard, soon, to raise it to 300-400 with a brand-new computer. Even then, though, I'm still years behind this individual.

Although I myself would prefer to re-zero, for that reason, my needs aren't as critical as the needs of the project. If doing that would hurt the project, I more than understand. Even so, it's my opinion, and I'll still be here crunching, either way.

---

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to."
Leela (From the Mac game "Marathon", released 1995)

I really suspect some users don't post here for fear of having their ideas berated. I'm always glad to see new users post. Even when I don't agree with their statements. We're all at different levels of understanding. We'll all be dead long before we know it all.

Speak for yourself. I think most of us here are already know-it-alls. I know I am.

There doesn't seem to be a good solution with regard to rectifying past problems in the credit system. Any action that has been suggested so far seems to have the potential to drive people away. So does inaction, but to a much lesser degree. Barring a new and revolutionary idea, my vote would be for inaction.

---

This is purely a theoretical statement. It's not directed at anyone. Just want to make that clear. This post also tries to address a few different issues. Hopefully it's still clear and easy to follow. If not, I'd be happy to clarify what I mean, at any point.

Theoretically, if we lose 50 crunchers, and gain 100, has anything really been lost?

Many have said that they aren't upset by credits, but by other things. For example, the opinion of some (indeed, some of the biggest contributors) seems to be "I don't care what the developers decide, so long as they take a firm stand and communicate it well." For these users, the specific decision made is a moot point.

I'm also sure there are many users (like me) who will stay here regardless of the final outcome. So, I guess my question is how many we'd really lose (I have heard that there are many users and farms who have been steering clear of BOINC, thus far, mainly because of the credit issue. So, we have to factor in all of the users we could potentially gain, as well.)

Another issue said by many has been that a re-zeroing would be like minimizing the contribution they have made. What if that wasn't the case? Like, what if there was some sort of an "attaboy" that would acknowledge the massive contributions of these users? I'm not really sure what form that would take, yet, but it's just something to consider, I think.

---

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to."
Leela (From the Mac game "Marathon", released 1995)

Mage that is a very good point and I wholly understand your position but what about the guy with the same machine as yours that was here earlier than you and has climbed higher, is it fair on him too ?

Soan, strange I know everything too until the wife ask`s me a question to which my stock reply is " I don`t know, I don`t know everything you know" ! LOL

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Good point that there's also a potential for gain.

Is there any way that we could take a random poll of users about the issue? It would need to be solicited of the entire contributing community rather than just those who visit the message boards.

---

Mage that is a very good point and I wholly understand your position but what about the guy with the same machine as yours that was here earlier than you and has climbed higher, is it fair on him too ?

Yeah, that's the part that makes it a lot more complicated (To be honest, it hadn't even occurred to me, until you mentioned it.). And you're correct, it's not fair to long-time users. Really, I wouldn't be bothered by this whole issue, if there weren't so many... "extreme" cases, out there (like the one I mentioned).

On the other hand, according to Moore's Law, this might fix itself sooner than we think, if we just left it alone. Especially in the case I mentioned, where the user left Rosetta about the time the new credit system came out.

This is a very complicated issue, unfortunately, made worse by the fact that complete records aren't available (I can't really blame them, though. I can imagine how much hard drive space that would take...). It seems we can't solve one problem without creating another.

---

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to."
Leela (From the Mac game "Marathon", released 1995)

With the quad cores out next month, Octo`s following months after the points on the board at present will look miniscule very very soon.

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Personally, I would love to zero things and start over (As mentioned, there's a user who started on the same day that I did, who got more than 100k credits using a single P4. Either I'm doing something really wrong, with mine, and can't get that much output (Mine's a 24/7 cruncher, aside from a small script that runs for maybe 2 minutes a week.), or the numbers were fluffed.

You can't always believe the reported CPU. As I've said before, I had an A64 at over 2.6GHZ running here and it was reported as a Sempron 3100+ for ages until I changed the OS.

---