Given Zombie67's point (which is valid in my comparison in terms of investments, thanks). . . I think it's fare to reduce the credits of those who 'tricked' the system into accpeting an unreasonable value to start with. 9 out of 10 identical worksations reported a similar wu time, should the 10th be given 5x the credits just because the software was set different than the rest?

If not everyone is taking equal advantage of the rules, and the powers that be want it to be less "customizable" , then change the rules to prevent it going forward. That's what we're doing here, right? Perhaps we're late in implementing chanes to those rules. That's our own fault, not those who took advantage of it. Punishing people for breaking no rules is unfair at best.

Worse terms come to mind.

Where on Rosetta's homepage did it say to download a different client to receive more credits? Users who read the Associated Press article who had no idea of other projects. . they should be punished because they didn't research things they had never heard of?

How does an apples to apples comparison hurt anyone? If you did the work, you get the credit. . if you did the work faster than the other guy, you get more credit. I'm not sure how this hurts anyone.

---

If not everyone is taking equal advantage of the rules, and the powers that be want it to be less "customizable" , then change the rules to prevent it going forward. That's what we're doing here, right? Perhaps we're late in implementing chanes to those rules. That's our own fault, not those who took advantage of it. Punishing people for breaking no rules is unfair at best.

However it cannot become the reason that prevents us from not applying the rules and leaving them as they've been, right? Moreover many participants are agree with that rules will be changed.

Where on Rosetta's homepage did it say to download a different client to receive more credits? Users who read the Associated Press article who had no idea of other projects. . they should be punished because they didn't research things they had never heard of?

Just like in the real world (especially in the investment world), you must research before you play. The more you know, the better you will do. Know the game in which you play, before you join. This is universal. Even a brief scan of the message boards would clue in a newbie.

How does an apples to apples comparison hurt anyone? If you did the work, you get the credit. . if you did the work faster than the other guy, you get more credit. I'm not sure how this hurts anyone.

I agree. So going forward, make it so (number one). Changing the rules backwards is wrong. Some people (had they known) would have never participated to begin with.

And worse of all, they have now lost out on accumulating credit on other projects. Rosetta@home is unable to make that right. The people will have been played by R@H, used and discarded like a spent condom. Nice.

I sincerely hope it doesn't work out that way, as I don't believe that is anyone's intention.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

However it cannot become the reason that prevents us from not applying the rules and leaving them as they've been, right? Moreover many participants are agree with that rules will be changed.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I think you are saying "But it should be okay to change the rules going forward, right?" If so, I agree 100%. In fact, I am a *huge* fan of the way SETI is doing it. And optomized clients mean exactly that...they crunch the SAME job in less time. More work = more credit = more science! Who can argue with that?

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Star Trek references aside :)

The governement makes you accountable for false claims on past returns. . why should people be given passes on clients that granted more credits than the standard one? Because they were the first to use it they should be given amnesty? What do they have against a level scoring system? If they are number one in the current credit system, they should still be number one when the actual work is calculated. . right?

-E

---

Star Trek references aside :)

The governement makes you accountable for false claims on past returns. . why should people be given passes on clients that granted more credits than the standard one? Because they were the first to use it they should be given amnesty? What do they have against a level scoring system? If they are number one in the current credit system, they should still be number one when the actual work is calculated. . right?

-E

The claims aren't false and therefore are not illegal. We have *ALL* read the posts from the admins, over and over, that optomized clients are not illegal/baned/against the rules/whatever.

Change the rules....Good! But don't punish people for *not* breaking the rules.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

...

I'm not sure I understand your point. I think you are saying "But it should be okay to change the rules going forward, right?" If so, I agree 100%. In fact, I am a *huge* fan of the way SETI is doing it. And optomized clients mean exactly that...they crunch the SAME job in less time. More work = more credit = more science! Who can argue with that?

I think your argument is based on a misunderstanding - An optimised client (i.e., a drop-in replacement manager) does no more science work than the original manager it replaced.

You'd need to optimise the science application (which is what Rosetta has been doing since it started) in order to increase the science output. The main effect optimising a manager has is to increase the credit score (a few have other functions as well, such as managing farms of computers, or giving you additional statistics).

What is being discussed is firstly whether 'science = credit' is a good idea going forward, and secondly whether it's a good idea going back, as well. My vote is 'yes' for both.

---

...

I'm not sure I understand your point. I think you are saying "But it should be okay to change the rules going forward, right?" If so, I agree 100%. In fact, I am a *huge* fan of the way SETI is doing it. And optomized clients mean exactly that...they crunch the SAME job in less time. More work = more credit = more science! Who can argue with that?

I think your argument is based on a misunderstanding - An optimised client (i.e., a drop-in replacement manager) does no more science work than the original manager it replaced.

No. You are wrong. Witht with SETI (and Einstein too if I understand correctly) the optomized clients actually do the job faster because they are optomized for the machine architecture. I know this for a fact for SETI and Macs.

Edit: I have seen the time get smaller for the same job, using optomized mac client*. This is not replacing the boincmgr, but instead the acutal client.

* http://tbp.berkeley.edu/~alexkan/seti/

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

The claims aren't false and therefore are not illegal. We have *ALL* read the posts from the admins, over and over, that optomized clients are not illegal/baned/against the rules/whatever.

Change the rules....Good! But don't punish people for *not* breaking the rules.

I'm not suggesting the science claims are false, there hasn't been a case of that happening I'm aware of. I'm only suggesting the credit claim needs to be re-evaluated.

It's not a matter of optimized or standard client scores. . it's a matter of work done for the project. If you have the most uber quad core overclocked liquid nitrogen powered rig dedicated 100 percent to Rosetta, you should be at the top of the leader board. . . you shouldn't be there just because you could edit a text file to add a couple zeros to your flops count.

---

...

I'm not sure I understand your point. I think you are saying "But it should be okay to change the rules going forward, right?" If so, I agree 100%. In fact, I am a *huge* fan of the way SETI is doing it. And optomized clients mean exactly that...they crunch the SAME job in less time. More work = more credit = more science! Who can argue with that?

I think your argument is based on a misunderstanding - An optimised client (i.e., a drop-in replacement manager) does no more science work than the original manager it replaced.

(add: R@H serves no optimised science application, unlike S@H and SIMAP, for example. Be careful not to confuse the client and the science app.)

---

No. You are wrong. Witht with SETI (and Einstein too if I understand correctly) the optomized clients actually do the job faster because they are optomized for the machine architecture. I know this for a fact for SETI and Macs.

Optimized boinc clients don't make rosetta run any faster. Check out task manager (or top if you're linux). The app using your cpu time is rosetta, not boinc. Compiling boinc to give you a million credits an hour has no affect on how fast Rosetta runs.

---

No. You are wrong. Witht with SETI (and Einstein too if I understand correctly) the optomized clients actually do the job faster because they are optomized for the machine architecture. I know this for a fact for SETI and Macs.

It is you that are wrong. What really compute is the science application. The client is just a manager.

The claims aren't false and therefore are not illegal. We have *ALL* read the posts from the admins, over and over, that optomized clients are not illegal/baned/against the rules/whatever.

Change the rules....Good! But don't punish people for *not* breaking the rules.

I'm not suggesting the science claims are false, there hasn't been a case of that happening I'm aware of. I'm only suggesting the credit claim needs to be re-evaluated.

It's not a matter of optimized or standard client scores. . it's a matter of work done for the project. If you have the most uber quad core overclocked liquid nitrogen powered rig dedicated 100 percent to Rosetta, you should be at the top of the leader board. . . you shouldn't be there just because you could edit a text file to add a couple zeros to your flops count.

You are suggesting to change the rules, after people have already invested their machines' time based on rules at the time the joined. How will you pay them back for that time?

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

No. You are wrong. Witht with SETI (and Einstein too if I understand correctly) the optomized clients actually do the job faster because they are optomized for the machine architecture. I know this for a fact for SETI and Macs.

It is you that are wrong. What really compute is the science application. The client is just a manager.

Good lord. "What we have here is a failure to commuicate." We have a terminology fubar. I mean that with SETI, they have optomized science applications (in your terminology). These "applications" are machine specific. They actually improve the efficiency of the machines.

Clear as mud?

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

I mean that with SETI, they have optomized science applications (in your terminology). These "applications" are machine specific. They actually improve the efficiency of the machines.

https://ralph.bakerlab.org/forum_reply.php?thread=233&post=2081#2074

the term "science application" is widely used
eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOINC

I mean that with SETI, they have optomized science applications (in your terminology). These "applications" are machine specific. They actually improve the efficiency of the machines.

https://ralph.bakerlab.org/forum_reply.php?thread=233&post=2081#2074

the term "science application" is widely used
eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOINC

Right. My fault for not using the right terminology.

So we're on the same page now?

Does this mean you agree or disagree with my points?

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Right. My fault for not using the right terminology. So we're on the same page now? Does this mean you agree or disagree with my points?

Basically I'm agree with Ethan's viewpoint.

While using the new system to re-score back to Feb or earlier will reduce the scores of those that used an optimized client, it'll be reduced the same degree as any other user of the optimized client based on the amount of time the optimized client was used.

On the other hand, keep in mind the poor Linux folks who are being penalized under the standard boinc benchmark (compared to Windows); and some of the Intel P4s that are getting rather poor scores on the standard boinc benchmark when compared to AMD Athlon cpus.

So the change will help out lots of people that weren't using an AMD cpu on Windows.

---

Right. My fault for not using the right terminology. So we're on the same page now? Does this mean you agree or disagree with my points?

Basically I'm agree with Ethan's viewpoint.

What does that mean in plain english? Could you be more vague?

My point in this part of the discussion (that you objected to) was:

"In fact, I am a *huge* fan of the way SETI is doing it. And optomized clients mean exactly that...they crunch the SAME job in less time. More work = more credit = more science! Who can argue with that?"

So replace OC with SA to correct my language isssue. Do you still object?

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

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?

I'm afraid there will be quite an uproar if you correct the credit for past work. It would be the fair thing to do but in the end it will result in bitter discussions and a loss of hosts. I support transition from the old to the new system as soon as it is accepted in the boards to level the playing field but wouldn't touch the past.


P.S.: Yes I'm using the cheating Boinc 5.5.0 but no I don't care for credits. I use it now for scientific reasons to check whether the new credit system will be immune against overclaiming hosts on RALPH.

---