If credit were a fair expression of contributed computing power then being told by WCG that My Q6600 quad just sucks at crunching selected projects and deserves a P3 rating, then so be it, but I'm not happy, and this happens more than sporadic.

ts05_ b187_ pe0000_ 1-- 617 Valid 7/29/10 21:30:30 8/1/10 13:55:05 16.33 382.7 / 156.1 < Moi on a standard 64 bit Ubuntu Repository client.
ts05_ b187_ pe0000_ 0-- 617 Valid 7/29/10 21:30:26 8/1/10 13:39:35 19.06 156.1 / 156.1

Pretty please WCG, until these BOINC sucking rules are permanently fixed, next half of this decade, don't you think a few little tweaks would not help the temporary appeasement?

If the WCG Project paid Twice as much or even Triple the Credit I still wouldn't Crunch here. I simply find my Account Pages a Nightmare to navigate and that's enough to keep me away from the Project.

Actually, no. The project arrives at granted credits.

Claimed credits are calculated by BOINC based on the benchmarks of a given computer. Credits are “supposed” to be granted based on the following BOINC standard:

Credit Granting Rules
These are the standard rules for granting Credit, based on the number of Results returned. Each Project will decide which rule is appropriate for their Project, or if they need to rely on a different method .

Number of Results Rule
1 Result: The Claimed Credit is granted provided the Result passes some Project specific test.
For example, Climateprediction.net (CPDN) grants a fixed amount for each "Trickle" reported.

2 Results: The lowest of the Claimed Credit values is granted.
See Sek’s example above where he is at the mercy of the wingman.

3 Results: The top and the bottom of the Claimed Credit values are removed and the middle value is granted.
Note: This is really just a special case of the 4 or more rule.

4 or more Results: The top and the bottom of the Claimed Credit values are removed and the middle values are averaged and the average of these Claimed Credits is granted.

Many projects use the “or if they need to rely on a different method” escape clause to grant whatever they want to. A Milky way GPU example of mine but it applies to many CPU projects as well:

Run time (sec):793.34 CPU time (sec): 20.05 Claimed credit 0.12 Granted credit: 213.76

Under the 1 result rule, a single quorum project would be granted claimed credit provided the Result passes some Project specific test. Typical WCG single quorum result of mine is less due to a “project specific test”:

HFCC_ n1_ 00162292_ n1_ 0000_ 0-- 611 Valid 8/1/10 11:12:20 8/1/10 18:46:58 4.03 Claimed:78.4 / Granted:65.1

After WCG’s “Project specific test” to arrive at granted credits, then WCG multiples credits by 7 to arrive at “WCG dog year points”.

I think this is still the most recent new calculations proposed by BOINC. There is much cussing and discussing and I am not hopeful for any BOINC-wide resolution soon. How it would be enforced is another raging argument. WCG can make any adjustments to their credits system they want to.

I would appreciate it if you could be more specific about what tasks you find hard to do rather than simply stating that it is different than what you are used to at other BOINC projects.

i have done other projects for the more bang for buck. honestly i like this one because i feel like i am doing something besides just a math or such program.

@ Knreed - most people are used to the "standard BOINC" style page and changes that can be made there... WCG has alot of settings that are not easy for people who are used to the boinc style page. Being i have used alot of DC projects before boinc i found this no more or less hard to navigate.
One problem though is if a stats update is happening it is sometimes harder to update you setings.
also alot of people I know use BOINCSTATS and BAM as a project manager.. from BAM you can manage EVERY project except WCG.

honestly i would love it if we got more BOINC credits and now and then i may stray a bit to some other shiny project but i like this one