Something is up with the home page:

Users (last day ): 1,366,118 (+47)
Hosts (last day ): 4,295,095 (+3832)

So 47 people have joined, but 3832 hosts have been added. Ok....

Also, I bet most of those users have been inactive for years. Active users would make more sense (like in server status), or is it an advertising ploy?



Server status shows:

Users
With credit 1358814
With recent credit 39520
Registered in past 24 hours 5251
Computers
With credit 4278023
With recent credit 150561
Registered in past 24 hours 3069

So the new users doesn't even agree with the home page! Pretty pointless just displaying random numbers.

---

Something is up with the home page:

Users (last day ): 1,366,118 (+47)
Hosts (last day ): 4,295,095 (+3832)

So 47 people have joined, but 3832 hosts have been added. Ok....

Also, I bet most of those users have been inactive for years. Active users would make more sense (like in server status), or is it an advertising ploy?



Server status shows:

Users
With credit 1358814
With recent credit 39520
Registered in past 24 hours 5251
Computers
With credit 4278023
With recent credit 150561
Registered in past 24 hours 3069

So the new users doesn't even agree with the home page! Pretty pointless just displaying random numbers.

No idea if it's him but there is a guy who builds super computers and preiodically brings thousands of hosts to Boinc to test his latest build, he sets up each core as it's own pc and just bangs out workunits at the various projects for a couple of days. Coming to Rosetta however may not be his best idea as the lack of consistent tasks is a problem for that testing scenario. They talked about him at another project and how his credits were going up astronomically fast, he brings in over 1000 pc's when he does it. He belongs to a Team and explained what he does on their Team pages.

No idea if it's him but there is a guy who builds super computers and preiodically brings thousands of hosts to Boinc to test his latest build, he sets up each core as it's own pc and just bangs out workunits at the various projects for a couple of days. Coming to Rosetta however may not be his best idea as the lack of consistent tasks is a problem for that testing scenario. They talked about him at another project and how his credits were going up astronomically fast, he brings in over 1000 pc's when he does it. He belongs to a Team and explained what he does on their Team pages.

Yes, Boinc is a great way to test hardware. I used to use it when I built custom spec gaming PCs. I made them super quiet, so used Boinc to test temperatures aswell as stability.

---

I’ve never understood those numbers. One thing to bear in mind is that the two pages are updated at different times of day, so they’ll never be identical – but that’s not enough to explain the major discrepancies between some of the stats. They must be coming from different sources, or using wildly different counting methods. A high rate of new users could be explained by bots signing up to try to post spam in the forums, but it seems unlikely that those would go to the trouble of setting up hosts as well.

There’s this user in the Dutch Power Cows with some impressive stats (some of which are reported to be related to some testing at Nikhef earlier this year) – but that works the other way round: presenting thousands of cores to BOINC as a single host, resulting in crazy-high RAC for each one.

Pardon me, but isn't the new hosts figure inclusive of any new device that one of the 1.3m existing users will have added?
No new user, but maybe adding a new PC or laptop or phone? Or upgrading an existing host with new hardware so that it appears to be a new device?
On that basis, even with no extra users, there'd still be quite a lot of extra hosts from a cohort of 1.3m.
There are quite a few hosts associated with my account, even though I only have 3 or 4 devices at any one time

---

Pardon me, but isn't the new hosts figure inclusive of any new device that one of the 1.3m existing users will have added?
No new user, but maybe adding a new PC or laptop or phone? Or upgrading an existing host with new hardware so that it appears to be a new device?
On that basis, even with no extra users, there'd still be quite a lot of extra hosts from a cohort of 1.3m.
There are quite a few hosts associated with my account, even though I only have 3 or 4 devices at any one time

If that were the case, why does Einstein have sensible figures?

"Hosts 7,839,545
Hosts registered in past 24h 166"

---

Pardon me, but isn't the new hosts figure inclusive of any new device that one of the 1.3m existing users will have added?
No new user, but maybe adding a new PC or laptop or phone? Or upgrading an existing host with new hardware so that it appears to be a new device?
On that basis, even with no extra users, there'd still be quite a lot of extra hosts from a cohort of 1.3m.
There are quite a few hosts associated with my account, even though I only have 3 or 4 devices at any one time

If that were the case, why does Einstein have sensible figures?

"Hosts 7,839,545
Hosts registered in past 24h 166"

Is it because it's a useless project that no-one would give houseroom to long enough to upgrade at? Especially not me?

---

Pardon me, but isn't the new hosts figure inclusive of any new device that one of the 1.3m existing users will have added?
No new user, but maybe adding a new PC or laptop or phone? Or upgrading an existing host with new hardware so that it appears to be a new device?
On that basis, even with no extra users, there'd still be quite a lot of extra hosts from a cohort of 1.3m.
There are quite a few hosts associated with my account, even though I only have 3 or 4 devices at any one time

If that were the case, why does Einstein have sensible figures?

"Hosts 7,839,545
Hosts registered in past 24h 166"

Is it because it's a useless project that no-one would give houseroom to long enough to upgrade at? Especially not me?

Eh? Einstein (and all the astrophysics projects) are the most useful projects on there.

---

Pardon me, but isn't the new hosts figure inclusive of any new device that one of the 1.3m existing users will have added?
No new user, but maybe adding a new PC or laptop or phone? Or upgrading an existing host with new hardware so that it appears to be a new device?
On that basis, even with no extra users, there'd still be quite a lot of extra hosts from a cohort of 1.3m.
There are quite a few hosts associated with my account, even though I only have 3 or 4 devices at any one time

If that were the case, why does Einstein have sensible figures?

"Hosts 7,839,545
Hosts registered in past 24h 166"

I wonder if the version of the Server side Boinc software matters? I can't find where it's listed at either project but I do know Einsten, and MilkyWay, are often VERY slow to update their Server side software.

To be fair there are ALOT of tweaks every project does to get it to run the way they want it to run, ie changing the credit allocation settings away from the "credit new" settings which are all over the place in the software.

Pardon me, but isn't the new hosts figure inclusive of any new device that one of the 1.3m existing users will have added?
No new user, but maybe adding a new PC or laptop or phone? Or upgrading an existing host with new hardware so that it appears to be a new device?
On that basis, even with no extra users, there'd still be quite a lot of extra hosts from a cohort of 1.3m.
There are quite a few hosts associated with my account, even though I only have 3 or 4 devices at any one time

If that were the case, why does Einstein have sensible figures?

"Hosts 7,839,545
Hosts registered in past 24h 166"

I wonder if the version of the Server side Boinc software matters? I can't find where it's listed at either project but I do know Einsten, and MilkyWay, are often VERY slow to update their Server side software.

To be fair there are ALOT of tweaks every project does to get it to run the way they want it to run, ie changing the credit allocation settings away from the "credit new" settings which are all over the place in the software.

Why can't credit be even across projects? 1 credit per GFLOP or something? My Collatz credits are 10 times higher than everything else, even though I don't do more for them. Is it a matter of projects trying to coax users? Or is it a matter of some GFLOPS being quicker to process?

---

Why can't credit be even across projects? 1 credit per GFLOP or something? My Collatz credits are 10 times higher than everything else, even though I don't do more for them. Is it a matter of projects trying to coax users? Or is it a matter of some GFLOPS being quicker to process?

Oh God NO NO NO!!!

Why cut the different projects off at the knees for the 'credit new' crap? This has been discussed endlessly but the gist of it is it takes the priority of the different projects away from them and essentially makes it impoosible for them to attain any very short term goals they may have. ie project A is looking for tke cure for cancer...a very valiant goal and something that needs to be done but in all reality won't be solved tomorrow or even next week, while project B is looking for a 'near Earth object' that could end humanity as we know it and gets the exact same priority as the cure for cancer. If we all die from a meteor we don't need the cure for cancer....so project B decides to give out 1 Million times the credits that project A gives out due to the priority of the project YET under the 'credit new' plan this is not allowed and we all die never knowing we could have saved ourselves but due to 'credit new' we never did.

Far out on a limb examples sure, but perfectly plausible in the grand scheme of things. In the past we have had projects that got paid for our crunching, we have had projects that donated the profits from our crunching to other projects, we have had projects that got paid for our crunching and just kept the money...and then went under due to their decisions. IMHO let the public decide if they 'like' a project or not with their crunching power, the best will rise to the top while those strictly out for the credits won't get nealry as much computing power.

Why can't credit be even across projects?

Because Credit isn't allocated according to the definition of the Cobblestone (even if a project uses Credit New (the official Credit mechanism)).

Is it a matter of projects trying to coax users?

Yep.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I wonder if the version of the Server side Boinc software matters? I can't find where it's listed at either project but I do know Einsten, and MilkyWay, are often VERY slow to update their Server side software.

Is VERY important the version of the Server side, not only for credits system, but also for bugfix, new features, etc.
But i also notice that projects are very slow to update their server, maybe because they "personalize" their environment

---

Oh God NO NO NO!!!

Why cut the different projects off at the knees for the 'credit new' crap? This has been discussed endlessly but the gist of it is it takes the priority of the different projects away from them and essentially makes it impoosible for them to attain any very short term goals they may have. ie project A is looking for tke cure for cancer...a very valiant goal and something that needs to be done but in all reality won't be solved tomorrow or even next week, while project B is looking for a 'near Earth object' that could end humanity as we know it and gets the exact same priority as the cure for cancer. If we all die from a meteor we don't need the cure for cancer....so project B decides to give out 1 Million times the credits that project A gives out due to the priority of the project YET under the 'credit new' plan this is not allowed and we all die never knowing we could have saved ourselves but due to 'credit new' we never did.

Far out on a limb examples sure, but perfectly plausible in the grand scheme of things. In the past we have had projects that got paid for our crunching, we have had projects that donated the profits from our crunching to other projects, we have had projects that got paid for our crunching and just kept the money...and then went under due to their decisions. IMHO let the public decide if they 'like' a project or not with their crunching power, the best will rise to the top while those strictly out for the credits won't get nealry as much computing power.

But the scientists doing the cancer research will just up their credits to match. Or maybe most people don't care about how many credits they get. Even if they do, they can compare themselves to others in the same project, like both of us do, we look at our position within each project.

The way it is at the moment is insane. Just look at my signature below, look at the RAC for Collatz and Prime. I've devoted 2 GPUs to each, yet the credits are wildly different, and therefore totally meaningless. Even if I did care about overall world rank, I'd want one that meant something, not one that had people ahead of me because they did a project they didn't really like but just did it for the credits.

---

Because Credit isn't allocated according to the definition of the Cobblestone (even if a project uses Credit New (the official Credit mechanism)).

Why not? Cobblestones would be a very sensible and fair way of measuring it.

Is it a matter of projects trying to coax users?

Yep.

I can believe maybe 5% of people do it for the credits. If it was money, probably 95%. But I doubt it makes much difference to your number of users if you hand out more credits. People select a project they care about, or one that runs well on their machine.

---

Why can't credit be even across projects? 1 credit per GFLOP or something? My Collatz credits are 10 times higher than everything else, even though I don't do more for them. Is it a matter of projects trying to coax users? Or is it a matter of some GFLOPS being quicker to process?

Oh God NO NO NO!!!

Why cut the different projects off at the knees for the 'credit new' crap? This has been discussed endlessly but the gist of it is it takes the priority of the different projects away from them and essentially makes it impoosible for them to attain any very short term goals they may have. ie project A is looking for tke cure for cancer...a very valiant goal and something that needs to be done but in all reality won't be solved tomorrow or even next week, while project B is looking for a 'near Earth object' that could end humanity as we know it and gets the exact same priority as the cure for cancer. If we all die from a meteor we don't need the cure for cancer....so project B decides to give out 1 Million times the credits that project A gives out due to the priority of the project YET under the 'credit new' plan this is not allowed and we all die never knowing we could have saved ourselves but due to 'credit new' we never did.

Far out on a limb examples sure, but perfectly plausible in the grand scheme of things. In the past we have had projects that got paid for our crunching, we have had projects that donated the profits from our crunching to other projects, we have had projects that got paid for our crunching and just kept the money...and then went under due to their decisions. IMHO let the public decide if they 'like' a project or not with their crunching power, the best will rise to the top while those strictly out for the credits won't get nealry as much computing power.

But it’s being abused by projects of little merit that can only attract users by inflating their credits beyond reason.

Why can't credit be even across projects? 1 credit per GFLOP or something? My Collatz credits are 10 times higher than everything else, even though I don't do more for them. Is it a matter of projects trying to coax users? Or is it a matter of some GFLOPS being quicker to process?

Oh God NO NO NO!!!

Why cut the different projects off at the knees for the 'credit new' crap? This has been discussed endlessly but the gist of it is it takes the priority of the different projects away from them and essentially makes it impoosible for them to attain any very short term goals they may have. ie project A is looking for tke cure for cancer...a very valiant goal and something that needs to be done but in all reality won't be solved tomorrow or even next week, while project B is looking for a 'near Earth object' that could end humanity as we know it and gets the exact same priority as the cure for cancer. If we all die from a meteor we don't need the cure for cancer....so project B decides to give out 1 Million times the credits that project A gives out due to the priority of the project YET under the 'credit new' plan this is not allowed and we all die never knowing we could have saved ourselves but due to 'credit new' we never did.

Far out on a limb examples sure, but perfectly plausible in the grand scheme of things. In the past we have had projects that got paid for our crunching, we have had projects that donated the profits from our crunching to other projects, we have had projects that got paid for our crunching and just kept the money...and then went under due to their decisions. IMHO let the public decide if they 'like' a project or not with their crunching power, the best will rise to the top while those strictly out for the credits won't get nealry as much computing power.

But it’s being abused by projects of little merit that can only attract users by inflating their credits beyond reason.

Don't worry so much about the outlyer projects, they too shall fade into our memories of what once was and the best ones will stay. Sure new ones will pop up again and a few of the outlyers with unlimited funding may hang around as well but if they are doing real Science then who cares. Credits have always been and always should be compared to others within a project and not from project to project.

Why can't credit be even across projects? 1 credit per GFLOP or something? My Collatz credits are 10 times higher than everything else, even though I don't do more for them. Is it a matter of projects trying to coax users? Or is it a matter of some GFLOPS being quicker to process?

Oh God NO NO NO!!!

Why cut the different projects off at the knees for the 'credit new' crap? This has been discussed endlessly but the gist of it is it takes the priority of the different projects away from them and essentially makes it impoosible for them to attain any very short term goals they may have. ie project A is looking for tke cure for cancer...a very valiant goal and something that needs to be done but in all reality won't be solved tomorrow or even next week, while project B is looking for a 'near Earth object' that could end humanity as we know it and gets the exact same priority as the cure for cancer. If we all die from a meteor we don't need the cure for cancer....so project B decides to give out 1 Million times the credits that project A gives out due to the priority of the project YET under the 'credit new' plan this is not allowed and we all die never knowing we could have saved ourselves but due to 'credit new' we never did.

Far out on a limb examples sure, but perfectly plausible in the grand scheme of things. In the past we have had projects that got paid for our crunching, we have had projects that donated the profits from our crunching to other projects, we have had projects that got paid for our crunching and just kept the money...and then went under due to their decisions. IMHO let the public decide if they 'like' a project or not with their crunching power, the best will rise to the top while those strictly out for the credits won't get nealry as much computing power.

But it’s being abused by projects of little merit that can only attract users by inflating their credits beyond reason.

Don't worry so much about the outlyer projects, they too shall fade into our memories of what once was and the best ones will stay. Sure new ones will pop up again and a few of the outlyers with unlimited funding may hang around as well but if they are doing real Science then who cares. Credits have always been and always should be compared to others within a project and not from project to project.

Oh, I don’t worry about it but seeing a pentium II getting a million credits a day from a project with zero net value does seem a trifle bizarre :-)

Don't worry so much about the outlyer projects, they too shall fade into our memories of what once was and the best ones will stay. Sure new ones will pop up again and a few of the outlyers with unlimited funding may hang around as well but if they are doing real Science then who cares. Credits have always been and always should be compared to others within a project and not from project to project.

Indeed. I just look at my position in each project. I have a long way to go to catch up with your third place position! One of these days I'm going to buy 50 graphics cards just to beat you.

---

Don't worry so much about the outlyer projects, they too shall fade into our memories of what once was and the best ones will stay. Sure new ones will pop up again and a few of the outlyers with unlimited funding may hang around as well but if they are doing real Science then who cares. Credits have always been and always should be compared to others within a project and not from project to project.

Indeed. I just look at my position in each project. I have a long way to go to catch up with your third place position! One of these days I'm going to buy 50 graphics cards just to beat you.

LOL!!! This is overall in the World yesterday:
3 mikey 44,601,101 1,656,324,405,057 The Final Front Ear United States

IOW I'm NOT slowing down right now!!