| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: A response to Didactylos |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Locked Total posts in this thread: 61
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Movieman
Veteran Cruncher Joined: Sep 9, 2006 Post Count: 1042 Status: Offline |
The other day in this thread:
----------------------------------------http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=9261 You commented the following in response to this statement that you included from some other thread as it was not in the posts above yours: "others like Xtreme systems have turned up in grand style setting their own benchmark breathing a bit of life into the place." Your comment:"Don't do this. It is cheating, and severely annoys some of our members. I would love to hear Xtreme Systems explain how they make three times the points for their reported runtime than other teams, since they insist they play by the rules. Now let's see how much we can grow without artificially inflated scores... ;-)" This morning I went and checked the teams output by hour of runtime and I found the following information at this page: http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/stat/viewStatsByTeamAVG.do Based on the info at that page the output per hour of runtime by the XtremeSystems teams is #36 overall and definately not "three times the points per reported hour of runtime of the other teams" as you posted. My question to you is why do you slander us with false information? What have we ever done to you to cause this type of response from you? You are listed as a Community Advisor and with that position comes some responsibility.I would think that before going off half cocked and making accusations you would at least have the common courtesy to check your facts before slandering us. That thread has been locked but the damage done by you still exists. People see what you wrote and coming from a Community Advisor take it as gospel when the truth is totally differnent. I would like a public apology from you on this matter and a retraction of your statement. Thank you.  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
You want a complete analysis? No problem.
Firstly, let's look at the team output by hour of runtime. All the teams that are above you in the list have one or two members, as far as I can see. They are outliers, giving anomolous results because with just a few results from a single member, their average point score is severely skewed. Equally, there will be outliers at the other end of the scale, where a single member team has an unusually low score. If you plotted the results, you should get a normal distribution. Teams with more members should be closer to the statistical mean, since their combined score is not dependent on a single result, but on many. But the main point is easy to demonstrate: the global member average score per hour of runtime is 27.85. Your team's is 82.93. This is 2.98 times the average score - as close to my approximation of 3 as you are likely to get. If I had all the statistics available in an analysable form, no doubt I could make my point more strongly by calculating deviations and so on. If you read my post carefully, you will see that I don't accuse anyone. I was very careful not to accuse you, or your team. Instead, I stressed that artificially inflated benchmarks are not acceptable to this community, and I asked for an explanation of your team's statistically unlikely score. So, having checked my facts and found them correct, I still await an explanation. |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
An Alternate: WCG Global to XS average time per result: 0:000:09:16:09 versus 0:000:04:09:53 as at October 13, 2006. XS pushes thru 2.22 times as much work as the WCG Global per hour, so Orakk is perfectly correct in his/her observation, that XS has set a new benchmark.
----------------------------------------Offsetting 2.98 with the result duration factor of 2.22 gives a weighted average of 1.34.  Noone
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
mike047
Senior Cruncher Joined: Aug 22, 2006 Post Count: 262 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I am XS, Analyze this information.
----------------------------------------http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ms/viewMyMemberPage.do and http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1774916&postcount=10 Of the 41 listed units, 29 work for WCG, with 6 of the unit being dual core for a total of 35 clients. The remainder of the boxes are 7 FAH[two teams], 2 QMC, 2 split QMC/Leiden,1 Leiden only. All but one run 24/7, the exception is my main box that runs only when I'm online. You can see by my stats that I am doing 3+ times your average. What do you make of that??
mike
----------------------------------------Crunch Hard, Crunch Often  [Edit 1 times, last edit by mike047 at Oct 14, 2006 11:07:13 PM] |
||
|
|
Movieman
Veteran Cruncher Joined: Sep 9, 2006 Post Count: 1042 Status: Offline |
You want a complete analysis? No problem. Firstly, let's look at the team output by hour of runtime. All the teams that are above you in the list have one or two members, as far as I can see. They are outliers, giving anomolous results because with just a few results from a single member, their average point score is severely skewed. Equally, there will be outliers at the other end of the scale, where a single member team has an unusually low score. If you plotted the results, you should get a normal distribution. Teams with more members should be closer to the statistical mean, since their combined score is not dependent on a single result, but on many. But the main point is easy to demonstrate: the global member average score per hour of runtime is 27.85. Your team's is 82.93. This is 2.98 times the average score - as close to my approximation of 3 as you are likely to get. If I had all the statistics available in an analysable form, no doubt I could make my point more strongly by calculating deviations and so on. If you read my post carefully, you will see that I don't accuse anyone. I was very careful not to accuse you, or your team. Instead, I stressed that artificially inflated benchmarks are not acceptable to this community, and I asked for an explanation of your team's statistically unlikely score. So, having checked my facts and found them correct, I still await an explanation. You may not have come out in two words and called us cheats but you certainly implied it. The only team mentioned in your statement is Xtremesystems and in the next line and I quote" That is cheating" How much plainer does it have to be said before you expect someone to call you on the carpet for that statement? You said it, don't try and back your way out of it now. Your statement was loud and clear and could not be taken in any other way. As to points per hour: The problem with your logic is that your too busy looking at what should be, what is normal and what averages are. Charts are good for generalities only. You left out one very important factor: The people involved. This isn't the "Dell 3 year old PC" team but XtremeSystems and you failed to take that into your equation. We shouldn't be anywhere near a 'plotted normal" because the machines we run are vastly above the normal. This isn't me bragging sir, this is just plain fact. The "average" system on this team is so far above what you are used to seeing from some college or from mary smith's home PC that to you it cries cheat.Our guys think that conroe system clocked to 3600mhz running DDR2-1000 ram are the normal and nothing special. FSB speeds of 1600 aren't even given a second look. The owner of the forum,FUGGER, held the world's record for a Pentium 4 at over 7000mhz. Many and I mean many worlds records are held by members at XS. Since your not familar with what we do let me phrase it in a simpler way: Imagine a country where all the cars are Ferrari's and of that caliber. When someone drives by in a new Lambo it doesn't even get a second glance from the people there because to them that is the norm. That is XtremeSystems in a nutshell. The averages you mention are from huge numbers of older systems that aren't even in the same league as what we run and that is what skews your numbers. Had you done your homework and actually asked what systems we used and at what level of performance they are at you might have never made that statement. I beleive I have answered your question. Now I'd like an apology for your statement and a retraction. Thank you. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Oct 16, 2006 2:34:14 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Okay, how about this, then?
The XS official team policy (now) is to run unoptimised at WCG. However, some of your membership violently resist this, and have gone on record saying so. Unfortunately, there is no way of determining conclusively which users are using an optimised client, so you all get painted with the same brush. I'm sorry about that, I really am. But what can you do? You have a reputation, particularly after running away from Rosetta because you weren't getting the points you used to. Yes, you have lots of computers. How nice for you. But a work unit is still worth the same amount whether you run it in five minutes or someone else runs it in five days. Claiming extra is cheating, and using an optimised client is cheating. Do you use an optimised client, mike047? |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
how about a test didactylos? i have 7 machines with various cpu's. i'll get the list together and post them here. you choose which is close to what you have and we go head to head. i don't run any optimized clients, you can and then we compare results?
|
||
|
|
mike047
Senior Cruncher Joined: Aug 22, 2006 Post Count: 262 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
NO, I always play by the rules set forth, sorry.
----------------------------------------
mike
----------------------------------------Crunch Hard, Crunch Often [Edit 1 times, last edit by mike047 at Oct 14, 2006 11:39:23 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Movieman, you still don't understand, do you?
----------------------------------------I thought we had had this discussion, and you finally understood how points work. I see that this is not the case, and you still believe that a faster computer has some kind of god-given right to earn more points for a work unit than if the same work unit ran on a slower machine. The points per hour is, as you say, not a very helpful metric. I don't know why I let you bring that up (because, if you look back, you will see that you first brought it up and stupidly I used it in my reply). But I can demonstrate the same anomaly in your other statistics (well, Sekerob actually did it for me). Examining points per result is the only place where we can expect to see fast and slow computers giving the same result. So, the 3x figure was a red herring, and for that I apologise. The true figure is your team's score is inflated by about 1.33x. edit: And just to be quite clear, I stand by everything I have said, since it is easily verifiable and appears to be quite accurate. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Oct 14, 2006 11:45:07 PM] |
||
|
|
Movieman
Veteran Cruncher Joined: Sep 9, 2006 Post Count: 1042 Status: Offline |
Okay, how about this, then? The XS official team policy (now) is to run unoptimised at WCG. However, some of your membership violently resist this, and have gone on record saying so. The official team policy since the day I talked with Kevin at WCG and asked what they would like to see and his response of"we'd like to see everyone using the stock client" has been to do so and I posted that request in our forum. As far as I am aware everyone is using either 5.4.11 or 5.4.9 Unfortunately, there is no way of determining conclusively which users are using an optimised client, so you all get painted with the same brush. I'm sorry about that, I really am. But what can you do? You have a reputation, particularly after running away from Rosetta because you weren't getting the points you used to. In one point here you are correct. I have no way of knowing exactly what client anyone is using including yourself. I have posted my log results in the orginal thread and those show that I am using 5.4.11. As to Rosetta, you don't know what your talking about. This is just one more time you've made a statement without researching the facts. "Running away from Rosetta?" Are you joking? We left and for one simple reason. Bakers lack of backbone.His inability to control his own forum.I refused to support him or his program while he sat idly by while 3 individuals who gave essentially nothing to that program called us cheats. It wasn't their comments but his lack of action that forced my leaving that program. Their credit change system came about at the end of that mess and had nothing to do with our leaving. This was all about respect and had nothing to do with points as they are meaningless except as a motivational tool to bring in new members and to have a little fun with in competitions. Yes, you have lots of computers. How nice for you. But a work unit is still worth the same amount whether you run it in five minutes or someone else runs it in five days. Claiming extra is cheating, and using an optimised client is cheating. This has nothing to do with "lots" of computers but the quality and performance of the ones you do have. Correct on the 5 mins or 5 days point but that has nothing to do with your comments. As to claiming extra and using optimised clients, I have shown you that I am not using an optimised client so again, what is your point? Do I need to bring everyone from the XS team here to post their logs to make that point to you? My suggestion to you at this point is to either apologise and retract or to resign your community advisor position as you've shown by your unfounded comments that your not worthy to be in that position. If your not willing to be a man and apologise or smart enough to step down I will be writing the board of directors of WCG with a transcript of this thread and asking that they remove you. The choice is yours. Do you use an optimised client, mike047? Mike was one of the biggest supporters of using just the stock client so I will assume that his answer to this is no. |
||
|
|
|