RAC is based on average credit over a 7 day period, plus some projects have tasks larger then that and so they use an expoential formula to graduate the peak and valley of a single task being reported. Note the 604800 seen in the formula is the number of seconds in a week. So it takes a full 14 days for RAC to be fully reflected.

In your question, you provided about 1 day of data. Not enough information to compute your RAC.

I did not want to flood the text box with data, but you can look at my profile to see ALL the tasks that were processed and their totals. Typically I get something like 7-10 points more than claimed. So on that basis I expect my RAC to climb at a steady rate and not this zig zag pattern I have seen lately. The RAH RAC differs in its pattern than the http://boincstats.com/stats/user_graph.php?pr=rosetta&id=85645 graph which does show a steady climb with barely descernable valleys, which is what I figured RAH to be doing. What gets my attention is that for 2 days in a row the RAC of RAH has dropped (according to the local machine graph. their (BS) graph shows for the past 2 days a steady increase in RAC vs a drop according to RAH.

So I would gather from this difference that two different formulas are being used by each group to compute RAC vs one agreed upon standard.

I receive EMail notification from Rosetta when a PM is sent as well. It does not mean my EMail address has been disclosed to anyone.

Players are invited to teams either by EMail address (which noone would have in your case) or by user name. So, obviously you user name was used.

You should request the ability to opt out of being invited to join groups, and perhaps PM the owner of the group and express your displeasure with their recruitment efforts. But there's no security exposure here.

This is not a science topic, nor really a computing topic, so I've moved this thread to the cafe.

6/11/2008 6:19:59 PM|rosetta@home|[cpu_sched] Starting d110a_BOINC_CASP8_ABRELAX_main_t405_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-10-S3-9--d110a-_3740_4259_0(resume)
6/11/2008 6:19:59 PM|rosetta@home|Restarting task d110a_BOINC_CASP8_ABRELAX_main_t405_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-10-S3-9--d110a-_3740_4259_0 using minirosetta version 128

What good is a "game" without scores? Useless!

this game is not about scores, it's about science... at least for me... i never been in any puzzle higher than 4 place and i was very happy when i did a good prediction not when i was among the high ranked scores...

Any advantage has been hugely minimized by releasing the tool to everyone before the end of the one and only puzzle where it provided any noticible advantage by pointing you to a solution that scores well, but isn't correct.

[quote]There evidently are also special folding tools available only to a chosen few that lets them have a hugely unfair advantage over the general population of folders. These chosen few are allowed to compete with those that don't have the access. I would consider that cheating.

Ironic, isn't it? That those "chosen few" are ALL of the folks that started via the Rosetta@home early release... which you evidentally chose not to participant in.

And you evidentally don't have the new tool in question and so are making a huge presumption that it provides some "hugely unfair advantage". Any advantage has been hugely minimized by releasing the tool to everyone before the end of the one and only puzzle where it provided any noticible advantage by pointing you to a solution that scores well, but isn't correct.

It might be of some limited scientific interest, but as a competitive game, until those problems are fixed it isn't worth the cycles.

Scoring, ranking, and teaming aside, the reason the project was undertaken was the scientific interest. Scoring, ranking and teaming have no scientific interest and so, understandably are still being developed. And you don't need scoring, ranking and teaming to learn to how to reach higher scores with the available tools. Indeed, if you do not play now, you score no points towards player ranking and it will take you longer to catch up to others that have given it a try.

Oh, and the profiles don't work either. And there are numerous unaddressed software problems like 404 errors every time you try to connect.

I haven't seen a 404 error since about day 3 of the public announcement when the site was being pounded by 20,000 new folders. If there are specific problems, they should be posted on the Fold.it forums.

We're all entitled to our first impressions of the game, but I hope you don't let the impressions posted by Angus jade you. Indeed, there's nothing in his comments that imply he's done anything more then read comments posted to the chat box that is incorporated into the game, or can be attached to with an IRC client.

The Ralph executable has been updated to 5.95. This version fixes a small bug in the previous version.

is there an advantage to have one WU work for longer time?
or better yet.. whats better... longer WU or shorter WU?

How long was 1.07 tested on Ralph? Doesn't it seem apparent it should have seen more time?

with Mini Rosetta 1.07 there is a new record for "test period": 33 minutes and 14 seconds between the time it was released on Ralph and Rosetta.

I checked the result summary and the minirosetta jobs have a 90% success rate on R@h which is lower than the old rosetta app but it's not bad.

From a Rosetta user's perspective, I would consider 90% to be the minimum acceptable success rate on RALPH. Anything less than 97-98% here on Rosetta is unacceptable. It sucks to realize that you got a work-unit from a non-alpha project that causes BOINC to lock up and crash.

Please be more diligent with your alpha testing. What's the rush to get it here? If we want to run beta/unstable workunits, we will run them on RALPH (which I recently had to suspend on all 3 of my workstations due to mini-rosetta consistently crashing BOINC completely).

I am not aware of a work unit on R@h from mini that causes BOINC to lock up and crash. There is no real rush except for the interest of science and getting results, that is why we are slowly adding mini work units to R@h. We do however need to get mini running for CASP which is coming up this summer. Ralph does not have the same diversity of computers and active users as R@h so we have to eventually start running jobs, particularly since ralph jobs are having a similar success rate as R@h. I realize some people will have computers that don't like some mini work units as there are some computers that do not like rosetta tasks.

The list of CPUs on Ralph looks very much like the list of CPUs on Rosetta, just fewer of them.........of course it doesn't matter there are fewer CPUs on Ralph, because you don't give us enough WUs to keep those CPUs busy anyway.

What does the diversity of active users have to do with anything?

If you aren't going to use Ralph as a "real" test site, why don't you shut it down, conserve those resources and continue to test on Rosetta like you do now.

I got 9 mini 6 hour wu's today. I have had 5 of them 'freeze' around 12-18 min and then go on to the next wu. I have not had this with Rosetta before today, but I have had some do this on MilkyWay. Is there any info I can leave to help? I am using Boinc 5.10.13.

You can help by joining the Ralph@home project for alpha testing if you haven't already.

http://ralph.bakerlab.org

Yes, we've been testing it on ralph for the past few weeks in small increments. All jobs that run on R@h get tested on ralph first no matter what the application is. The current version runs stable on Ralph but since R@h is a much larger project, some issues might emerge. We are going to slowly ramp up tasks making sure they run okay.