I wouldn't start a thread about credits or participate in such thread in R's forums, as if it became a hot topic of debate, it'd just waste project human resources. So, personally I feel we are discussing a valid subject, with the R project's best interest in mind.

Agreed. We are just discussing it in the wrong place.

Regards
Phil

---

I wouldn't start a thread about credits or participate in such thread in R's forums, as if it became a hot topic of debate, it'd just waste project human resources. So, personally I feel we are discussing a valid subject, with the R project's best interest in mind.

Agreed. We are just discussing it in the wrong place.

Regards
Phil

And I disagree. This is exact the right place to discuss this topic.....

---

Teddies...

IMO Credit has NOTHING to do with Ralph unless the Project wants it that way. It appears they do not, so it does not.

However, the open honest discussion of the matter shouldn't be "forbiddened" or sensored. There are many users who don't have a full grip of the situation. The previous poster "ingleside" IS a volunteer coder for Boinc and has a full grasp of this subject. In his post he presented the Projects options fully. Which they chose is up to them, but you can rest assured that the facts as he presented them are accurate and quotable. Users can use the information to come to a fuller understanding and to make his or her decisions more reliably.

The projects (all boinc projects) are NOT a democracy, but neither should they be a repressive monarchy.

tony

NOTE: also you might see posts from John Mcleod VII, he wrote the scheduler used in Boinc. Information presented by him is also trustworthy.

"But, adding boinc_ops_cumulative means code-changes to the application, meaning any likely change to Rosetta@home's crediting should be alpha-tested by RALPH before it's released, and is therefore on-topic in this alpha-project."

That's what Ingleside said and I second this...

It must be of great interest to the project team to keep the crunchers stay with Rosi. I hate cheating and me (and others) will take our ressources to other projects if this problem isn't resolved in the long run.

---

Teddies...

"But, adding boinc_ops_cumulative means code-changes to the application, meaning any likely change to Rosetta@home's crediting should be alpha-tested by RALPH before it's released, and is therefore on-topic in this alpha-project."

That's what Ingleside said and I second this...

It must be of great interest to the project team to keep the crunchers stay with Rosi. I hate cheating and me (and others) will take our ressources to other projects if this problem isn't resolved in the long run.

No question Ingleside is correct as far as testing any new credit system would be concerned. His post is a fine description of the current BOINC options for credit systems. RALPH would be the place to test any new credit system when/if a test application for that function is prepared and needs testing.

What he and many posters to this thread seem to be unable to see is that there is NO such application being test here NOW. Nor has one been proposed. This discussion would be on topic if thread title of "credit scores" were part of the CURRENT alpha test. They are NOT.

Even Fluffy Chicken who started the thread, only raised a question about Rosetta credits not Ralph or even Ralph testing of credit systems. In the original post it is clear that it is about about perceived off site record keeping issues for rosetta credits, nothing about ralph. As close as it gets to a ralph related question is to ask about floating point benchmarking and the possibility of "blanket" scoring in ROSETTA. Not even a suggestion of a proposed test of these functions in RALPH, which in a twisted way might have been viewed as a proposal for a test.

Later Fluffy Chicken mentions why the question was posted here. Not because it is actually relevant in any way to this project, but because "Here we can bash out ideas for improvement to the client without the mess associated with the main forum (rosetta)."

So the real reason it was brought here was not because it was relevant HERE, but instead so the question would draw attention. So the whole point of posting it here was to be certain the developers would see it and attract their attention. Attention that at every opportunity they have said they would prefer to focus on other issues at this time.

This is still the wrong place and/or time to post this discussion, because it is simply not timely and it is off topic. People still seem to be unable to grasp that simple concept. Put all this in the ralph cafe forum, fine. Move it to Rosetta, fine. But this forum is for feedback for the CURRENT ralph test, and it should focus on that single purpose to help the developers find information they need for the current testing.

As a developer Ingleside, should know that.

OK, here's my feedback: All 4 crunchers are doing well with Ralph. No problems, no bad results.... ;-))

---

Teddies...

First, it is of course a suggestion that they try something out. Why else would I post and ask for ideas and ease of integrating them.

Snake must see Ralph as something different to me, I see it as the testing and development side of Rosetta, again one in the same application and goal. to make Rosetta better.

By 'mess' I mean everyone jumping on the post without putting ideas toward it (which is what this topic has now been turned into :( )

All It was intended for was to gather the ideas together so it could be incorporated into the client for testing.

No where does it say credits are not being tested, the guidlelines just say credits and what becomes of them are not important (in the Ralph context), which I read as hey it doesn't matter if you loose loads of credits, they get zeroed dont work quite right or whatever and so anyone doing Ralph is here to improve 'Rosetta the project'.

I didn't say boinc suckz, screw you all ;) I just said that the current chosen implementation of credit scoring by Rosetta doesn't work and I gave proof AND an idea and then some more ideas with question (which have been answered). The initial suggestion was propesed due to the way Ralph was now

Shame I have to keep defending along the way things that will hopefully help Rosetta 'the project' along the way :(



No where in the guidliens does it say suggestions have to be exactly on what they are testing AND only on what they are testing.

[i]NOTE: This is a test project so credits* and other competitive statistics are not important. There will be times when no test work units are available.

1. Please do not abort work units.
2. Try not to cache too many work units since we are trying to test on as many different machines as possible.
3. Since the message board is the main feedback channel, please help to keep it manageable. Do not post repetitive information and only post constructive feedback.i]
* see above explanation

This is not repetative information, it is one topic on credit testing here related to new changes in the test client and it (was) constructive.


Did I say it needs changing now, no.

Just ideas <geez>

---

...No where in the guidliens does it say suggestions have to be exactly on what they are testing AND only on what they are testing.

NOTE: This is a test project so credits* and other competitive statistics are not important. There will be times when no test work units are available.

1. Please do not abort work units.
2. Try not to cache too many work units since we are trying to test on as many different machines as possible.
3. Since the message board is the main feedback channel, please help to keep it manageable. Do not post repetitive information and only post constructive feedback.
* see above explanation

This is not repetative information, it is one topic on credit testing here related to new changes in the test client and it (was) constructive.


Did I say it needs changing now, no.

Just ideas <geez>

Fluffy -

I am fully aware of the relationship between rosetta and ralph. They are however NOT the same project. Certainly what is discovered in Ralph will be used for Rosetta, and issues that are raised in Rosetta may or may not eventually be brought to RALPH for solution testing. That is in fact the very basis of my point.

What is lost in all of this is that this in a science project. In science you set up controls, and protocols, and try to eliminate all extraneous and unrelated factors to test for results, by focusing on as few factors as might be required to get valid test results. The fact is that the last part of the guidelines that you quote say more than what you focused on in your post. Guideline 3 says all that I am trying to say to all of you.

The guidelines say that these boards (the Ralph boards) are the feedback channel. I think we can assume that the statement applies to Ralph since they are Ralph guidelines. It then follows that there is somewhere else for posting Rosetta issues. This is followed by a simple request to keep it manageable. I think we could all agree that IT means these forums. I think we can all see that when he says "manageable", he is asking everyone to keep post and thread counts as low as possible, it is a clear reference to the size of the forum. This is then followed by the statement "Do not post repetitive information and only post constructive feedback.

I never suggested your question was repetitive. While you focus on that concept, what you have raised here relates to rosetta operational concerns not the current testing in ralph, and so no one ever raised it here because it does not apply here. Therefore it is not repetitive. but that is only one of the criteria by which you should be measuring your posting on the Ralph boards. Reading the rest of the request in the guidelines we also see a criteria for only constructive feedback. That cannot be taken out of the context in which it was offered, Ralph project issues.

The constructive feedback should be focused on Ralph and these current testing objectives. While you state that your post is about the credit tesing in the Ralph project, there is NO credit testing in the ralph project. They aren't eben looking at that. The project is not asking for new ideas about what to test for, they are not asking for feed back on things they are not testing for at this time, and they certainly are not asking for things to look at that relate to off site use of rosetta credit scoring data.

While I can see that you think that your view of the statements from the project that credits do not apply to ralph, may support your view of this thread and it content, it is a rather narrow view of the meaning of the statements themselves. When someone tells me that credits are of no concern to the ralph project, and they say it at every opportunity. I take that to mean precisely that. There is no context in which credits have meaning to this project. That includes testing them, looking at them, awarding them, thinking about them, worrying about how other sites might use them, or testing new methods of generating them. When that changes, I feel fairly confident that the project will tell us and then this thread would be relevant feedback for the ralph project. But it isn't now, and it is not helping to keep the ralph forums manageable. People open a lot of threads just because they can, and that is not helpful to the project in getting at what they need to see to fix the problems thy are focusing on.

So the entire thread is off topic as ralph feedback, and represent just the sort of clutter the project did not want to have on these boards.

As a developer Ingleside, should know that.

Hmm, looks like become too hung-up with BOINC alpha, but when again their instructions clearly states "If you have experienced problems with BOINC that are not exercised by any of these tests, please post to the email list."


Anyway, RALPH@home homepage states:

February 15, 2006
Welcome to RALPH, the Rosetta@home alpha project. Volunteers needed!!

We need volunteers and we need volunteers soon! If you are interested in helping to improve Rosetta@home, please join.

There are a number of improvements to the rosetta application that we need to test. Just to list a few:

Hmm, looks like the translation got screwed-up (again), since my interpretation of "improve Rosetta@home" meant all of Rosetta@home and not just to check if the latest bug-fixes worked. :oops:

In any case, this thread has become a waste of time for everyone, so just nuke it.