| 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 |
|
|
mike047
Senior Cruncher Joined: Aug 22, 2006 Post Count: 262 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Several thing her that I have questions about;
----------------------------------------How do you KNOW mine or others points are not in line[and with what] with what you expect? Why is it exactly that it matters to you in any event , the scores???This for science, so the points don't matter, correct. Why have you purposely embarked on the point issue campaign, directly or indirectly aimed at XS. Why are you still a forum advisor when it is reasonably clear that you have a direct bias against one group/team?? Are you considered a good ambassador for WCG by this bias?? I feel and have stated before you have some personal issue with the XS team in general and have not only singled us out for your scruitny, but usually come across as very adversarial and confrontational. I have no issues with you personally and I guess everyone has a crusade...but it pains me to see you bashing a group of people needlessly. Just let this issue go and let us as a group [WCG] do some work for science. Be assured, that if this will not cease this vein of prejudice, I willnot address it again. My Points[ be it # of wu's or awarded points], my ranking and my known Personal Integrity will speak for itself in the future.
mike
Crunch Hard, Crunch Often  |
||
|
|
Movieman
Veteran Cruncher Joined: Sep 9, 2006 Post Count: 1042 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. Every comment I have made here in this thread is in response to your comments in this and just in this thread. You said points per hour of worktime not me. My understanding of how this all works is that no matter how long a machine takes to do the work they get the same points, ie the quorum system used here. My point and you seem either unwilling to either see it or understand it is that if joe's monster cruncher does a WU in 2 hours and the average machine does it in 6 hours Joe's machine will be getting 3 times the hourly rate of the average machine because in the time that average machie took to do one WU Joes did 3 of them. I can't say it any simpler that that. XS is full of Joe's machines and your calling cheat because your WCG program has many thousands of average machines. We simply have a very high percentage of our total machinery in very fast machines and that is what makes all your assumptions wrong. Your comparing 200,000 ford sedans to 400-500 Ferrari's and asking why the Ferrari's are so much faster. I also stand by my comments in total as stated in my last post and fully intend to follow through with this. I can not and will not stand by while you call us cheats. The choice is yours.  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
You misunderstand the issue: it is precisely because of threads like this, and unhappy members, that I (and WCG) are so against having cheaters around. Perhaps I should have nipped it in the bud and left your taunts unanswered. However, I thought it better to clarify the issues.
I have never at any point in this thread made any personal accusations. I'm sure that none of the participants in this thread cheat personally. But it would be a lot more honest of you if you accepted that there are a significant number of people on your team still using an optimised client. I note that I haven't thanked you for taking an official stand against optimised clients. That was remiss of me. You did the right thing. Oh, and movieman: if you spot any other teams with anomolous scores, then I will be more than happy to scrutinise them for you. I don't play favourites. And for the record: I'm using BOINC 5.7.0. :-p |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
snip... 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. ...snip Hi. Yhis is just not true. With the quorum system for points in place it works like this: A faster or modern machine will be benchmarked to produce X points/hour. A slower older machine to produce Y points per hour Y will be smaller than X but due to technological improvements the ratio is dispropprtionate. Thus X x Hours to produce a Work unit will be much smaller than Y x hours. This has been shown in the "Unfair Credits" thread recently. In that case, the slow machine was in a quorum with 2 fast machines and its points nearly halved. The more commom scenario for people like XS is that because there are so many slower machines here, they will have teir fast machines matched in a quorum with 2 slower ones and have their points claimed often doubled or more. This will skew the points wildly in favour of the latest and fastest equipment. As more fast machines enter the project, and the balance fo average power swings in that direction, average points given per Work unit will reduce dramatically for everyone!! You r slow computer will still claim the same points but will increasingly be in quorums of faster machines and will be awarded much less points. Liewise the faster machine matched with another fast machine or two will only get points claimed instead of the inflated figures provided by the slower ones. So, a WU is not worth the same points regardless of time taken. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cheers. ozylynx  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
ozylynx, I said it's "worth" the same amount. I did not say it is always awarded the same amount, or cheating would be impossible and this conversation would be moot.
|
||
|
|
Movieman
Veteran Cruncher Joined: Sep 9, 2006 Post Count: 1042 Status: Offline |
You misunderstand the issue: it is precisely because of threads like this, and unhappy members, that I (and WCG) are so against having cheaters around. Perhaps I should have nipped it in the bud and left your taunts unanswered. However, I thought it better to clarify the issues. I have never at any point in this thread made any personal accusations. I'm sure that none of the participants in this thread cheat personally. But it would be a lot more honest of you if you accepted that there are a significant number of people on your team still using an optimised client. I note that I haven't thanked you for taking an official stand against optimised clients. That was remiss of me. You did the right thing. Oh, and movieman: if you spot any other teams with anomolous scores, then I will be more than happy to scrutinise them for you. I don't play favourites. And for the record: I'm using BOINC 5.7.0. :-p What started all this was your comment that included XtremeSystems of which I am very proud to be a member. This is your answer to a comment that you quoted and then put into the orginal thread: "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... ;-)" Now I am a member of XtremeSystems and your comments can be taken in no other way than to say we are cheating. I am 54 sir and I do enjoy the competitions. We set a goal to catch Easy News but to do that and to resort to cheating to do it would make the whole thing worthless to me. I remember running a one mile race in 1967. There was a guy in the race that was the state champion. One of my teammates offerred to sprint the first 1/2 mile and let me run in his "draft" to conserve energy for the last half of the race. I said no as it would kill the meaning even though this is considered legal in racing today. I ran my best mile that day: 4minutes38 seconds and came in #2.. I never regretted that decision. Winning without winning cleanly isn't winning at all. You will now make comments about optimised files and rosetta but that would take an hour to explain in full. Bottom line is this: I use the stock BOINC app and asked all my teammates to do that also. If some do not that is beyond my control but I will bring up the issue again so that it is fresh in everyone's mind. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Yes.
Best if you don't take these things personally, or you will spend your life all bent out of shape. And that's no fun at all. My original statement was intended purely and simply to show that WCG do not condone benchmark inflation. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
ozylynx, I said it's "worth" the same amount. I did not say it is always awarded the same amount, or cheating would be impossible and this conversation would be moot. There is no point to them cheating. Their modern, fast machines will be awarded more points per WU than they claim, on average, by default of the system. I repeat, slow computers are penalized points when teamed in a quorum with fast ones and Fast computers are given bonus points when compared with slower ones. This is the averaging system. Faster machines have the system "cheat" for them by default. Cheers. ozylynx |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
That's just illogical, ozylynx. But I'm nothing if not fair. Prove this, and I'll be most interested.
|
||
|
|
Movieman
Veteran Cruncher Joined: Sep 9, 2006 Post Count: 1042 Status: Offline |
Yes. Best if you don't take these things personally, or you will spend your life all bent out of shape. And that's no fun at all. My original statement was intended purely and simply to show that WCG do not condone benchmark inflation. I take everything said about me and the team I am with personally. These are my friends,people I deal with every day . If that is all you meat by that statement I quoted in at least 2 posts here then it's the poorest choice of wording I've ever seen. It left one impression and only one on the readers here. |
||
|
|
|