One reason not to do this is that some people may reject work units that look like they are going to perform poorly. Even negative results are important to the project, and aborting work units just slows us down.

It would be interesting to see some more preliminary results, but posting daily statistics will leech valuable time from the already busy project scientists.

All of the results computed, low scoring and high scoring, are equally important to the researchers. If people started aborting work units becuase they didn't think their particular work unit was producing useful results, it would put the enire project at risk. The researchers need the negative results as well so they better understand the patterns that yield "good" and "bad" results. Furthermore, additional postprocessing is usually required anyway before the know if they have a "good" or "bad" candidate. In time, they will post something about what candidates they have found. Patience please.

The rosetta at home project is working on improving the Rosetta program itself, so they know what the output ought to be if it is working correctly. This makes it easier to declare that a computation produced the closest answer to reality. On our project however, we are usually computing things in unknown territory, so such declarations are not so clear cut.

Just bumping an old suggestion I had a while back under another screenname.