The method by which points are assigned is determined by each project. Many projects inflate the points in order to attract crunchers. WCG does not do that.

Sitting in recliner, doing hahaha at reading that FAQ item: WCG multiplies BOINC credit by 7 to get to points, then divides them by 14 to get to FLOPS, which makes this inter-project comparative element at BOINCStats etc nonsense as well. Berkeley's Credit_New is incredibly broken and WCG's credit rules and exceptions amplifies this... how many times do we have to tell the crunchers?

(The horses are galloping, fearing for their lives... me too as it's a true waste of time to discuss when those that can do something about this have locked this ToDo item with a priority code of IsNull to the bottom of Thé List)

I too noticed the different points in other BOINC projects. I used to crunch SETI, Milkyway, Climateprediction, and Rosetta to name a few. When my wife got breast cancer, it was such a helpless feeling, being able to do little but research and support her, weather her storms, and encourage her. When I found WCG, which at the time was running Help Conquer Cancer and Help Fight Childhood Cancer, I dropped all my other projects and began to crunch only here. It gave me a feeling of being able to do something, no matter how small. I feel the the projects here have merit and while I do like to track my numbers and collect badges, the main goal is to contribute.

I have 10 years and 1 day on Mapping Cancer Markers which netted me 9.9 million points, while my 10 years and 105 days on Fight Aids has resulted in only 4.9 million points. Who gives a damn in the long run?

IMHO, if one is here with the main goal of collecting points, then one is here for the wrong reasons. It fries me to hear people complain about such petty b.s. The world is an imperfect place but we're all going to leave it in the end...

I'm sure this isn't what you wanted to hear, but you brought it up. Just chalk this up to another 'pointless reply.'

Mike