Message boards :
Webpage and Application Code Discussion :
Posted 24 Nov 2017 by UBT - Timbo
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.