I've only been a cruncher here for a few days, yet, my credit total now exceeds 500,000, more than other projects I have been crunching for years. The quota for the project is not high.
____________
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

... and a day later, exceeds 700,000.
____________
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

There was an earlier discussion ( This thread ) back in February. At that time I got this for W@H:

Notes: measurements in terms of # seconds to produce a BOINC point (seconds for unit divided by points granted).

System Spec: Xeon E5-2650 @2.1 GHz running Win10

EXACT: running in between 17 - 21 sec/pt

My highest ten days with CSG have all been between May 29 and June 24.
I have reached or am close to several personal goals.
My high credit total (for me), has been the result of sticking with the variety of trials and WU experiments since last December. It's been well worth it.
I would be somewhat dishonest to say I don't like the current credit payoffs. I would also be dishonest to say that they are not on the high side for a CPU WU.

My credit is over a million now, in 2 weeks crunching, at regular project priority. Compared with say Rosetta, another CPU based project, this has almost 1.3 million, but has been crunching here at above normal priority, since 2005.

Of CPU based projects, all but 1 have a recent average under 5000, the last has an average of 7000. The recent average here is just short of 30000

I maintain the credit here is too high.
____________
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

I agree that RAC is too high compared to other projects. Typically, projects benchmark their workunits against the credit granted by a SETI@Home workunit.

I agree that RAC is too high compared to other projects. Typically, projects benchmark their workunits against the credit granted by a SETI@Home workunit.

Hi all

Although, in an idealistic world, the credits issued by a project shouldn't matter, in reality, they do to a lot of people.

As such, I think the projects should set the credit level to be commensurate with how quickly they want to see results from the tasks that they make available.

A higher than average credit earning capability will (usually) attract more crunchers to the project and hence the project scientists will get back more meaningful results in a shorter space of time.

So, I have no issue with any project setting too high or too low a level of credit, for any amount of validated tasks, uploaded by crunchers.

Of course, the credit offered can be varied by each project depending on the level of difficulty each type of task presents....

So, where's the problem? Some projects offer lower than average credits per task (SETI, Sztaki) and others are higher.

As long as everyone crunching the same type of tasks on the same project using a similar CPU, gets the same level of credit, then what the actual credit ratio is (compared to CPU or GPU time), should be down to the project.

regards
Tim

The credit system only works if the baseline metric is the same (or similar) as all other projects. When one project grants significantly less or more credit than other projects, it creates an unfairness that encourages other projects to defect. Granted credit would then vary wildly between projects for the same CPU/GPU. The end result is the invalidation of credit as a measurement of user contribution. (I.e., credits become meaningless without a standard metric/unit to compare against.)

In regards to my SETI comment earlier, back on the old credit system, SETI had a numeric scale for measuring work done that could be translated to other projects. I'm not familiar with how it's done now. Perhaps an expert at another project would be helpful for a consult? Or one of these technical guys:
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/ProjectGovernance

I've tried to get this fixed, but he doesn't seem to want too. At the same Resource share setting, I get 5 times the credit here as I do at other CPU projects, it is by some way, my highest credit awarder, 5-6 times the next highest. I gave up bothering, credit is of no use anyway.
____________
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

>>> couple batches

We've been saying this since June.....
____________
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

>>> couple batches

We've been saying this since June.....

I'm a little puzzled by this.

>>> Sarcasm and being ungrateful

I see no sarcasm, that is a simple statement of fact. He has said it will be fixed, and it has not been. You simply need to look at the dates of the posts in this thread to see that. He acknowledges the basically unwritten rule that projects aim to keep credit inline, he is not doing that.

Viz ungrateful, that puzzles me even more. We are doing his work, who do you think should be grateful?

>>> If you did the amount of work

I crunch many projects, under several names and have been doing so since the early predecessors of BOINC in the last century.
____________
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

Of CPU projects on here at base priority, (ie. 100), their RAC varies between 1500 and 8000, of course, work unit availability needs to be factored in there. Here. also at 100 priority, my RAC right now is 25,244.

As you said...

>>> the credit rate probably does need to be dropped a bit
____________
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

Travis:

I, for one, am grateful to have a project administrator paying attention and making needed changes to this active project. That sounds like a lot of crazy work for the end of a semester. I'm sure working together, we will continue to improve the science and technicals.

Hope you have a happy holiday season.

I vote to leave credits as is

Philip
____________

I vote to leave credits as it.
J.J.