| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Support
Forum: BOINC Agent Support
Thread: BOINC Points post in Member News |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Locked Total posts in this thread: 277
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Gents/Ladies, can we please stay on the topic without getting personal!
----------------------------------------What WCG want and all DC's want is level playing ground, so that when we look at the Global BOINC stats it can be said, that A contributed X Cobblestones, and B contributed Y Cobblestones. No one wants to see Z injected in this competition. Anyone going with Z can look in the mirror and make his own judgment, if (s)he feels okay with that. As to posts a few up on optimization and beta duration, let me give u my old continental view: A. There are 2 meanings to the word "optimized" in the BOiNC realm. 1. 'Optimized' to get the science going faster....there are 1 or 2. BOiNC is not instrumental in that, u get the optimization from the likes as Seti and solely intended for the likes as Seti (if they are the one's). 2. 'Optimized' to get the Benchmark values up in order to increase the claims, without the science going faster. B. On Beta, they are usually a single batch of 4x500 units to accelerate quorum 3. This 800 WU test for the Points was an exception in terms of size and of only 1 WU.... quorum 800 so to speak. All beta have a short run time, much shorter than a week. cheers
WCG
----------------------------------------Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! [Edit 2 times, last edit by Sekerob at Nov 11, 2006 11:18:43 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Sek
Does the type 1. science accelerating software cause artificially high benchmarks? My information has been that : a) They don't enhance WCG projects b) They don't cause fake benchmarks, at least by default. If that is the case there should be no issue with running that type of client here. That's not what we're talking about. If, on the other hand, there is such an "essential client" as described which effects the benchmark we all would be interested as this would pose a most urgent problem. CarlH: Not only are the stated effects real. You were told on many occasions and on many threads that it was happening. Cheers. ozylynx  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
You were told on many occasions and on many threads that it was happening. I wasn`t told anything, that is indisputable ! I came with my clients already installed, I was told it wasn`t illegal, I was told the quorum sorted out the bench processes etc. You are skewing the argument because you know you cannot answer my previous post, facts are facts. In your glee that someone else is suffering because of this implementation of punishment, although they gained nothing because of a previous quorum system. If the new process equalises the points, good......Why the need to punish ? I am not TRYING to cheat merely letting my machines carry on crunching using the same opti I have for a long time as many others do/have. Your joy at my unjust punishment makes me realise that DC is full of smug idiots who cannot see further than their own ego`s. You should be feeling slightly miffed that the project has lost wu`s when I dumped unnecessarily as will many others. To be perfectly frank, this type of thing has happened on other projects and the geeks with no social conscience make me feel like jacking it all. -- This post has been edited to conform to forum rules - nelsoc [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Nov 11, 2006 4:28:45 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
For the third and final time: the WCG policy on this has not changed. Unofficial clients are used entirely at your own risk, and are not supported. As you know, there is nothing WCG can do to actually stop people from using unofficial clients, and some unofficial clients give great benefits to the users through extra features and so on. Therefore, WCG prefer that you don't use an unofficial client, but they don't actually ban or block unofficial clients.
However, if you use an unofficial client to artificially inflate your claimed credit, then this is now penalised under the new credit system. I really can't see anything to argue about here. WCG would be quite within their rights to block all unofficial clients, or to give zero credit for inflated claims. I think half credit is most generous. Now, a reminder of the forum rules: keep it civil, please. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Wrong !!!
WCG policy has changed which is obvious, not supported was alway`s policy but taking away of points is new so don`t talk crap didactylos. I quote YOU then this is now penalised under the new credit system. This is the argument /conversation if you cannot follow then please don`t join it. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I agree; let's please try to stay to the issues, not he personalities.
Addendum to previous post. Your choice has cost the project in time and effort, Beta testing and salaries for people to fix this system. You have skewed the point system in such a way that it is impossible to identify and fix genuine flaws in the system. you have no way of knowing what your actual contribution to the project is and placed many others in a similar position through no fault of their own. Lastly the 5% or less using optimised clients has caused 100% of the community to sacrifice points in order to bring your selfish excesses into line. Cheers. ozylynx I am sorry; this is just wrong. First, 5% is consderably more than I'd found. Second, there was only an effect on points when 2 opti's were in the same quorum. My statistics are a little rusty, but even at 5%, I think then that affected quorums would be 5%*5%*2 or .5%, hardly enough to skew much. So the wasted recources were really caused by ridiculous whining, if anything. Finally, the slight drop in points for everyone has nothing to do with catching opti's. That is a seperate mechanism from deciding to go with the average over the median and could have been done either way. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
rob725, you are not in possession of all the facts. By analysing all the claimed credit, WCG were able to see the exact extent of the problem. I believe one of the staff explained in detail how this impacts granted credit. I refer you to that discussion, since it was totally comprehensive.
carl.h, please leave it alone now. You have voiced your unhappiness, and we have heard you. WCG policy has not changed. The way they enforce the policy has. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Carl if you would answer pm's/emails I wouldn't have to make this post.
 Your fighting a war you can't win. I know you didn't know about the changes and it sucks you had to dump wu's. I understand that is upsetting and then you had to come here to find out what was happening. You found out and you fixed the problem. The changes have already been made and thats the end of it. I'm sure you have other more important things to deal with now and no point in getting yourself so upset over something that no longer matters. You know I wouldn't tell you these things if I wasn't your friend and I'll always be in your corner. You know I'll always been one of the first ones in line if someones starts crap with you. But I will also tell you when its time to walk away. Hope otherwise life is treating you well Carl and glad your still alive and obviously kicking.   |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
WCG policy has not changed. Didy....Of course it has changed, a new system has been implemented and a reduction in points is part of that. It is WCG policy therefore it has been changed. You cannot implement a punishment policy to an existing agreement without it changing the policy. To implement any changes to an agreement, especially legally, it has to be agreed by both parties and the party doing so MUST make sure it is bought to the attention of the other party. If you think on this in terms of your ISP and their bringing in a fair use policy overnight you may FINALLY see. WCG POLICY has changed. I am a reasonable person and will agree or apologise when wrong but stubborn pig headedness drives me wild. Policy changed and in changing it WCG, imho, did not make reasonable effort to communicate it. Also in doing so they have chosen to punish where not necessary, they have alienated another group when trying to achieve an equalibrium. To wield a sword to those that were innocent until recently without good forewarning is preposterous. Is this just a power crazy person, one has to wonder ? |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Here is an extract from the agreement:
THE PURPOSE OF WORLD COMMUNITY GRID IS TO HELP OTHERS. THEREFORE, IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT YOU OBSERVE ALL COMMON COURTESIES AND A SENSE OF DECENCY IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE PROJECT: YOU WILL FOLLOW ALL CURRENT AND FUTURE POLICIES AND RULES OF WORLD COMMUNITY GRID; THOSE RULES WILL BE UPDATED ON WORLD COMMUNITY GRID SITE FROM TIME TO TIME. Do you honestly imagine you have been complying with this? WCG have never made any promises or guarantees about what credit they will award. Credit has always been granted at WCG's sole discretion. This has not changed. |
||
|
|
|