I searched the HELP before posting. There was no match to the word "cruncher". So I ask again. What is meant by the differences in titles, and how are they awarded?

Ah. I understand now. # of posts = title.

Shouldn't it be the actual contribution to the science? More crunching = Ace.

Now, that would be great - tying your title in to the value of your posts! A tricky bit of code to analyse that I suspect.

And we thought the BOINC points system was flawed....

Sek:

I read this post some weeks ago, and have been mulling it over since then. I don't agree with the titles being assigned to users based on the number of postings made in these forums. If they are indeed based on the raw count of postings, and not helpfulness or content (which are subjective and not something a computer can evaluate), then people should just sit in the TEAM or CHAT ROOM areas and post away with useless tripe. That will certainly push up the numbers. Respect is earned over time, but these titles are simply assigned.

Your statement about "sitting on the behind" I found particularly offensive. Those that only have a few machines maybe can do so but those of us that manage many dozen can't do that. I find my PC's require daily attention, almost like children.

I take a vested interest in the projects I get involved in. The website I setup and maintain, with the level of UD details and soon to contain BOINC details also won't be counted towards my "experience" level.

Personally, to make things fair, I think the rating should be based on a formula based on raw WCG stats: time registered, time active, overall points count, # of valid results, etc, and some measure of value given from the community advisors base on the individuals posting quality, helpfulness and professionalism.