The issue might be dead but it was never really solved.

Again, I don't see how it could be solved, but on the off chance that someone figures it out, I think the developers would probably reconsider their decision.

All that can be said as of now is that all suggestions thus far have been rejected.

---

It's the usual problem with this topic.

The Project admins or scientists (D. Kim or D. Baker) refuse to come on here and say one way or the other whether backdating is even possible, or if they would even consider zeroing out credits and startin over with Rosetta 2 or whatever you would call it.

Until that happens, this is just all noise.

They have, WEEKS ago - to them it is a dead issue - they have come here on this message board and said NO -

That is why this thread is so stupid, discussing a dead issue.

KevinT find that post and I'll close the thread.

tony

It's the usual problem with this topic.

The Project admins or scientists (D. Kim or D. Baker) refuse to come on here and say one way or the other whether backdating is even possible, or if they would even consider zeroing out credits and startin over with Rosetta 2 or whatever you would call it.

Until that happens, this is just all noise.

They have, WEEKS ago - to them it is a dead issue - they have come here on this message board and said NO -

That is why this thread is so stupid, discussing a dead issue.

KevinT find that post and I'll close the thread.

tony

PROMISE ??? PROMISE NOT TO EVER BRING IT UP AGAIN ??

here is just a few comments I found on the issue - I have not the time nor energy to go further.

Search David Kim's Posts yourself. I did.
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2153#24821

AND TONY - you will notice that YOU posted in the above thread - how can you claim you have not seen this subject brought up and discussed before - Come on, you are smarter than that.
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2153#23721

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2153#24821

And from Dr Baker's home journal
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=1177#23501



And a quote - "thread has been removed" From David Kim.
"30) Message boards : : Number crunching : New credit system already live
Posted 30 days ago by David Kim

We made a final decision and the decision was to keep the credit totals and just switch over to the new system. "


There are MANY posts of this nature by the project devs over a month old.. many of the threads have been removed - but you can search by posts by David Kim and others -

Now -

Please close the thread, and have the Mods remove this silly dead horse discussion.

---

SETI.USA

IMHO

The credits across the whole of Boinc are skewed to SOME degree.
The new Rosetta credit system is fairer (afaik).
There is no way other than what is currently happening to HAPPILY rectify past scores.
No team was whiter than white.
Some individuals who called "C" were just as guilty to some degree.

I never thought I would agree on more than a sentence of one of your posts, but here I have to admit, that I agee to all of those. :-)

Concerning the BOINC benchmark and it's unbalanced values across different platforms I just want to say that I'm happy Rosetta now has a work based credit system which equalizes such disparities.

Concerning the optimized boinc clients I admit I used them as well (as I have stated on several occasions) and still don't view it as cheating although it certainly increased the disparities. I'm happy that now we have a credit system which is neutral to the version of the boinc client (and personally wouldn't mind to be backdated to "true" values).

Concerning the discussion of backdating or zeroing out I agree that it is a dead issue, since as kevint pointed out the project made a decision and (hopefully) won't revoke it. However the discussion has some academic value. ;-)

KevinT, I agree they said Backdating is not an issue. This thread isn't about backdating.

Post 30 by Dekim was in relation to having just one column labelled "granted credit", instead of having both "Granted Credit" and "Granted work credit", as they had in Ralph during the testing. See this post and this post which all lead up to that comment.

I have never seen a post saying "we won't be resetting credit and starting over" or any such post.

Resetting of credit was only ever brought up ONCE by a newer poster and he was quickly roasted into submission. There is no "over and over and over".

It is far better for users to come to the conclusion one way or the other and to drop this subject on their own, rather than being forced to do so. If it's done naturally through civilized discussion, then it will be agreed upon and long lasting.

KevinT, I agree they said Backdating is not an issue. This thread isn't about backdating.

Post 30 by Dekim was in relation to having just one column labelled "granted credit", instead of having both "Granted Credit" and "Granted work credit", as they had in Ralph during the testing. See this post and this post which all lead up to that comment.

I have never seen a post saying "we won't be resetting credit and starting over" or any such post.

Resetting of credit was only ever brought up ONCE by a newer poster and he was quickly roasted into submission. There is no "over and over and over".

It is far better for users to come to the conclusion one way or the other and to drop this subject on their own, rather than being forced to do so. If it's done naturally through civilized discussion, then it will be agreed upon and long lasting.

Did you even read the links I provided ?
(and why the links to RALPH, I provided links for the production site, not test sites, come on you can do better than that)

I am sorry but I think this comment by Dr Baker states:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=1177#23501

"Second, To answer a question which came up on the boards--we will NOT be backdating credit totals. The new system will go into place early next week, adding on to the current totals."

Catch that last bit there - ADDING on to the current totals, which means - NO ZEROING OUT OF CURRENT CREDITS.

I knew you just could not bow out - you also said you have not seen this brought up in discussion, but it is painfully clear to me and I would suppose most others that since you have posted in the threads that discuss this issue, you either have a problem with long term memory or just choose to forget. Case in point - your 2nd post on this thread is all about back dating.

Move on - it is not going to happen, zeroing out, leveling the playing field, or any other term you choose to use here.

Just crunch on and go foward, it has been decided.

---

SETI.USA

Kevin,
It is just chat, there is no law against it at the moment (the mods are having a few days off ;-)

There is no real harm, its all relatively civil and there's a bit of fun along the way. So the topic drifts off a bit here and there, what is the harm?

I think the main participants have been quite restraint when somebody comes in f-ing and blinding about what we are talking about. (The shouting and demanding). Of course that maybe because carl is having a good day today <waves at carl/whistling smilie>.

Please we are just having some chat and theorising, it's healthy for the brain.

---

Team mauisun.org

Yes, FC I took my pills this morning

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Kevin,
It is just chat, there is no law against it at the moment (the mods are having a few days off ;-)

There is no real harm, its all relatively civil and there's a bit of fun along the way. So the topic drifts off a bit here and there, what is the harm?

I think the main participants have been quite restraint when somebody comes in f-ing and blinding about what we are talking about. (The shouting and demanding). Of course that maybe because carl is having a good day today <waves at carl/whistling smilie>.

Please we are just having some chat and theorising, it's healthy for the brain.

Ethan did not

---

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

Kevin,
It is just chat, there is no law against it at the moment (the mods are having a few days off ;-)

There is no real harm, its all relatively civil and there's a bit of fun along the way. So the topic drifts off a bit here and there, what is the harm?

I think the main participants have been quite restraint when somebody comes in f-ing and blinding about what we are talking about. (The shouting and demanding). Of course that maybe because carl is having a good day today <waves at carl/whistling smilie>.

Please we are just having some chat and theorising, it's healthy for the brain.

Ethan did not

? Ethan's not been in this thread ?

---

Team mauisun.org

Tony,

I found another one - I did not even have to look at that far.
Even if it is a post by Ethan -

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2161#23944

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2118#23568

Recalculated also includes zeroing out.

---

SETI.USA

I`ve nothing more to add now, so I`ll disappear into the night once more. I hope I`ve gained a little respect from some, I know some hate me which is fair, I`m a big loud character not to everyones taste. Some here have gained a lot more of my respect, some not.

I honestly do not think the project will zero the points in anyway but I do believe in free speech for all. I think the concern from Kevin and the likes is that the project was talked into a new credit system by a few and might be talked into the same about zeroing, not that I`m saying either is true. I believe that is how some see it.

And with that I wish you adieu, till another time perhaps.....

<Big sigh of relief all round>

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

I`ve nothing more to add now, so I`ll disappear into the night once more. I hope I`ve gained a little respect from some, I know some hate me which is fair, I`m a big loud character not to everyones taste. Some here have gained a lot more of my respect, some not.

I honestly do not think the project will zero the points in anyway but I do believe in free speech for all. I think the concern from Kevin and the likes is that the project was talked into a new credit system by a few and might be talked into the same about zeroing, not that I`m saying either is true. I believe that is how some see it.

And with that I wish you adeui, till another time perhaps.....

<Big sigh of relief all round>

Agree, this project was coerced into the new credit system by a few and you are exactly correct - if those with little or nothing to loose (can't use the z word here) keep complaining then the project is going to die a slow and painful death.

---

SETI.USA

Post 30 by Dekim was in relation to having just one column labelled "granted credit", instead of having both "Granted Credit" and "Granted work credit", as they had in Ralph during the testing.

Wrong, again Tony, - read it as it is quoted:

"30) Message boards : : Number crunching : New credit system already live
Posted 30 days ago by David Kim
"We made a final decision and the decision was to keep the credit totals and just switch over to the new system. ""


The credit totals are to be kept in place and just switch over to the new system. The final decision.

This post is from the Rosetta site, not the RALPH site, not that it would matter anyway.

And if you will look here
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2153#24111
You will see that the issue had already been decided and closed.


Now Tony, do as you promised, drop the subject.
I have proven the issue many times over, this has been discussed, decided and put away, no need to keep bringing it up. - AND you know it has been discussed and decided, no need to say things like you don't have an opinion, everyone knows your opinion, you have made it perfectly plain many times.

---

SETI.USA

It's the usual problem with this topic.

The Project admins or scientists (D. Kim or D. Baker) refuse to come on here and say one way or the other whether backdating is even possible, or if they would even consider zeroing out credits and startin over with Rosetta 2 or whatever you would call it.

Until that happens, this is just all noise.

They have, WEEKS ago - to them it is a dead issue - they have come here on this message board and said NO -

That is why this thread is so stupid, discussing a dead issue.

KevinT find that post and I'll close the thread.

tony

---

SETI.USA

Tralala: Your math game regarding 50 left , 100 entered as new , we gained 50 is very flawed.

That is the problem with number games anyone can play

First of all: Lets assume and this is a safe assumption that the 50 that left had more than one machine dedicated 24/7 to Rosetta . :

We know that at least one of the ones that left even had 100 by themselves: so right there you gained nothing in production by the addition of the 100 new computers : All 100 computers are being used to replace the work of that person and that person alone.

So lets assume the 50 that left averaged 6 computers each: That is 300 computers that left , the project is now 200 computers down.

But legs go further the computers that left many were double cores...lets for argument sake say 35 of the ones that left were double core ...that is the equivalent of 70 computers , so the project lost 235 computers crunching.

And since the majority of the computers of those 5o were faster , more powerful by the reasons of their CPU , ram, motherboards and overclocking you have lost even more power

Assume 90 % of the 50 machines that left were 1.25 more faster than the ones that substituted them you actually have lost the equivalent of 225 computers .

So 50 left, 100 entered , the project lost the work of 225.

Not yet... Since hadn't they have left those computers would have still been crunching and their work being added , the project actually lost 225 more computers ...

Jose, your arguments seem to be sound but I think you stopped short of providing the whole picture.

First: Yes, the loss of any computers because their owners were disenchanted or otherwise driven away from the project is a loss. It cannot be said to be made up for by new users, because we have to assume that those new users would have come to the project whether or not the old ones left.

Except some users may have actually been drawn into the project by the same changes that drove others away. There isn't any proof that this actually happened, or would happen, so I won't claim that it did or will, but it must be considered in a holistic approach.

Second: It must be taken into account that at lest some of the new computers coming to the project will also be high-end machines. This reduces the effect of loss of other high-end machinnes.

I should note here that this second point is moot in light of the first point except in the case that new users are drawn in specifically because of the changes that caused others to leave. This brings me to my third point.

Third: The real question to ask here is whether the long term effects will be positive or negative.

This prompts the question, "Will more people (per day, per year, etc.) join in the future after a change than before that change?" I don't think that the differences will be statistically significant in the positive direction or in the negative direction. I doubt that most people who join put enough research into the credit system before joining to even realize if there has been a change.

Follow up question: "Will more people stay with the project after the change than would have before said change?" If the change is to zero out credits or backdate, then it could be argued that many current users (especially those who had joined shortly before the change) would decide not to continue. As for users joining after the change (who IMO determine the future success of the project to at least the same degree as those before them), I don't think that there would be much of a difference. The exception would be a handful of newbies with high end machines who would see an opportunity to jump to the top of the boards and therefore stay longer than they might have otherwise, but I don't know that they would represent a large enough group to merit extra consideration.

Except that many of the new ones that people are joining and that people are abscribing to the new systems can be explained very easy: college students being recruited as part of college efforts to participate So the increase of participants can be just an accident of the timing (the start of college season) and not a result of the new credits.

I for one, would like to see what type of crunchers substituted the kentfields, conroes , high powered AMDs and overclocked machines that left . And how any 24/7 Rosetta only crunching machines replaced the the ones that left?

Then, we can talk and really compare.

---

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

Agree, this project was coerced into the new credit system by a few and you are exactly correct - if those with little or nothing to loose (can't use the z word here) keep complaining then the project is going to die a slow and painful death.

I believe I was one that requested the change to a credit-for-decoy based system because it would eliminate problems like xml editing, and get us away from the accusations of optimized clients users cheating. If you consider me a "ZR", then so be it. I recall there being at least one post by a larger pharmer that agreed that a work based system was a fair solution to the problem, so it wasn't just us smaller members of Rosetta. If we post once and were listened to, I take it as proof that our single posts were better thought out than any of the alternatives that were presented.

---

Agree, this project was coerced into the new credit system by a few and you are exactly correct - if those with little or nothing to loose (can't use the z word here) keep complaining then the project is going to die a slow and painful death.

I believe I was one that requested the change to a credit-for-decoy based system because it would eliminate problems like xml editing, and get us away from the accusations of optimized clients users cheating. If you consider me a "ZR", then so be it. I recall there being at least one post by a larger pharmer that agreed that a work based system was a fair solution to the problem, so it wasn't just us smaller members of Rosetta. If we post once and were listened to, I take it as proof that our single posts were better thought out than any of the alternatives that were presented.

Nope, you are not a ZR, In fact there is nothing wrong with it either. IMO, it is not a negative thing. Some of us have the resources, some don't no big deal. Every one counts, that is why DC projects are so popular, because even the guy with a single CPU can contribute. I have several machines that have a RAC of 25-30, but they still crunch.

Lets not get off topic here. The topic I thought was zeroing out the credits. Elimiating the credit for work that has been done in the past. Some crunchers have done more than others - so what. Everyone should be able to keep the credit they have earned and go forward with the new system without someone constatly saying "lets zero out the credits"

---

SETI.USA

I believe I was one that requested the change to a credit-for-decoy based system because it would eliminate problems like xml editing, and get us away from the accusations of optimized clients users cheating. If you consider me a "ZR", then so be it. I recall there being at least one post by a larger pharmer that agreed that a work based system was a fair solution to the problem, so it wasn't just us smaller members of Rosetta. If we post once and were listened to, I take it as proof that our single posts were better thought out than any of the alternatives that were presented.

I did'nt see any alternatives here. Seems at the time, it was all done and decided at Ralph without asking anyone here.

Have you taken the pledge yet Benny ? ;-)

---

Agree, this project was coerced into the new credit system by a few and you are exactly correct - if those with little or nothing to loose (can't use the z word here) keep complaining then the project is going to die a slow and painful death.

I believe I was one that requested the change to a credit-for-decoy based system because it would eliminate problems like xml editing, and get us away from the accusations of optimized clients users cheating. If you consider me a "ZR", then so be it. I recall there being at least one post by a larger pharmer that agreed that a work based system was a fair solution to the problem, so it wasn't just us smaller members of Rosetta. If we post once and were listened to, I take it as proof that our single posts were better thought out than any of the alternatives that were presented.

I was also one of the ones that was in the forefront in the request for a fairer credit system. Alas all It got me was grief and now the chagrin that while I was working on that , on arguing in favor of that ...some of the ones that were accusing those using opti clients a cheater and spent huge amounts of time repeating the over inflating credits slander, were involved in their team boards in discussions on how to use the opti clients, worst they were discussing and admitting to messing with the XML code and using the clients they argued ad nauseam were cheating


Benny, and I am not accusing you: perfectly argued my foot. Lying , being hypocrites was what got some people heard: Those were the ones protected by the administrators and the moderators.

To say that I am angry, is an understatement. My team , XtremeSystems was accused mercilessly ; was slandered by some of the ones that for weeks were painting themselves as agents of virtue.

I wonder how many of those hypocrites , now that they have been exposed will ask for their credits be zeroed out. See, when my team caught 2 guys cheating we asked for almost 4 million credits to be zeroed out, we did not tolerate cheating and yet many of the ones now that have admited messing with the XML and using the otpti clients they repeatedly said was cheating have not moved and asked that their credits be zeroed out ( I am really bothered by the XML stuff, that is cheating and as such it got people removed without recourse of appeal)


This has been a sad day for me.

---

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