The best description on how points are calculated is found here. I cannot address the fairness of the algorithm -- that is just the way the code was written. I guess most of us have come to the conclusion that we really are not in here to accumulate points, we are here to contribute our unused computer resources to the humanitarian efforts being undertaken and the points awarded is only a vague representation of that contribution.

I am sorry I can not give a better explanation than this.

Best Regards,

The algorithm for points is ancient. I have long been critical of it both here and at Grid.org (where I was prior to the WCG). We put together some text some time ago to try to explain things using different words and it is located here .

Now, your final question "Is a given result worth more points when my device is better or worse? " Strikes at the heart of the problem. One would think that any particular result is worth the same regardless of what computer completed it. That is fairly easy to agree upon.

I think that is what the original designers intended but they put in a bias for communications. Then people found a way to beat the system. So that was never implemented at WCG. Now there was also a hole in the calculation system relative to disk space and people found that if they indicated 10G, they would get more points regardless of how much disk space was actually used. Again an attempt by the original designers to bias things. Main Memory ... same story. A computer that has 2GB will earn more points than one that has 512MB even if the program uses the same on both computers and completes in the same time.

So, the original designers were trying to have a result be worth the same on all computers but put in a couple of biases for larger computers based on their expectations of projects such as internet communications testing and by doing so, introduced some flaws that people have figured out how to exploit. Actually, while I am critical of it today, I think it was a good first try by some smart people that got implemented (typical of large organizations in my experience -- implemented prototypes). Then, they were victimized by their own success. They could not correct it because it would upset all the folks that had already accumulated points using the older system. These algorithms have a way of handcuffing their creators.

Hindsight is 20/20. The algorithm is flawed. Some would say highly flawed. The algorithm is part of the UD agent that the WCG started with in order to get the HPF project up and running. I don't think that the WCG can change the algorithm as I think it is licensed from Grid.org (yes they did set the communication bias to zero).

So I believe that the algorithm for points calculation using the UD agent is what it will be until UD changes it, and while I have no way of knowing what UD plans, I do not expect a change in the foreseeable future.

I personally like the BOINC method though it is imperfect as well. Perhaps luckily, the simplicity of the BOINC method means it has fewer flaws.

Finally I would say that the points are just for fun/bragging rights. The real key here is that each result moves humanity closer to cures and that is what is really important. Future generations will not likely even know of this project, much less know any of our names or what we did. But we do. Thank You!