same thing led me here, with cancer of my Grandma...but I lost her 22y ago!
& she has practically raised me as a child...so when she died died, a whole World collapsed...& I was in a depression 4 a long time, just not showing it!

it lead me to UD grid.org...which lead me here! & here I'm still...


though, I do pursue badges right now...it's just a completion right now, by helping d World 2 B a better place!
so they also have a purpose...imagine there r some individuals which do over 1TF in a 1d - awesome results! we need those people also...

d way I look @ this is similar to #WCG staff:
"Grateful 4 all the contributions 2 d Science!"

I noticed an imbalance between OET and UGM a few weeks ago. It looked like UGM was granting twice as many points per cpu hour so I switched all of my machines over to do UGM exclusively.

But that seems to have been transient. I don't normally look at stats for individual work units but when it looked like I wasn't producing as much as I had been, I looked at validated results and discovered the discrepancy.

Now, a couple of weeks later, I had a problem with one of my servers and needed to reinstall boinc. Since I'd been getting a no work message, I set up another profile just for that machine to grab OET and UGM again. After about a day, I checked the results status to see how things were going and noticed that both projects now seem to be producing the same number of points per hour. UGM seems to have a slight advantage still but certainly not double.

For all of the people that like to downplay the significance of points, you should rethink that position. Whether you like it not this is an important motivator for a lot of users. And you should welcome that fact because even if a person has the supposedly shallow and superficial motivation of accumulating points, they are still contributing to the important research being done.

This is like the controversy over the Ripple giveaway. Everyone seemed to get their panties in a twist over all of the new people joining with non-altruist motivations but the fact remained that we actually managed to turn around our multi-year decline in active membership. I often get the feeling that everyone here would rather see us get back to 2007 membership levels.

I'd also point out that points are supposed to be an indication of work done. That's how I know when something is amiss with one of my rigs - when I see an uncharacteristic drop in points. So it's important that the allocation of points be fair - first because it tells you how much work you're doing both within and across projects and second because it's such an important animus for so many members.

Hi KLiK,
my post was only for information purpose.
I am fully aware how to manage my hosts for the most efficient contribution.
My intention was to mention that the question related to effective granted credits is not only a question of which project allows to earn more credits.
Many factors impact the final level of granted credits.
Yves

Hi SekeRob,
my comment was primarily proposed for de-emphasising the general feeling that some projects would be contributor-friendlier than others.
Since the world is not perfect and since the computer world is definitively not pefect, I was only trying to demonstrate that the credit question is not that simple and it is not only a question of "project fairness".
Some months ago, you mentioned that operating Linux in a VM for crunching purposes could be more efficient than to crunch natively (bare-metal installation) on a Windows host.
Even if I miss some available time, I would like to benchmark such a configuration.
Cheers,
Yves