This doesn't seem right...

[Bok]

http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?hostid=925

As compared to a similar one of mine...

http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?hostid=921

Is this a possible cheat ?

Bok

[Angus]

I think that with Rosetta not using a quorum to grant credit, that they have opened themselves up to "fiddling" with benchmarks, which will affect claimed credits.

Even if it's not overt cheating, accidental bad benchmarks will also skew the claimed credit. If it's an accidental bad benchmark, it should correct itself the next time the benchmark process runs - once a week I think.

The quorum system that throws out the high and low score and awards credits evenly for everyone returning that result will greatly reduce the effects of bad benchmarks.

[PCZ]

Yes its a cheat.

Look at the benchmarks they are far too high.
Because there is no Quorom at the moment they will get stupidly high credit.

[Angus]

Is someone going to post something over on the Rosetta boards?

<edit> I posted something in the Canonical Result (http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=36) thread.

[PCZ]

What about this one.

Owner Bijek
Created 22 Sep 2005 16:38:56
Total Credit 154.80
Recent average credit 710.36
CPU type AuthenticAMD
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+
Number of CPUs 1
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
Professional Edition, Service Pack 2, (05.01.2600.00)
Memory 511.48 MB
Cache 976.56 KB
Measured floating point speed 4032.56 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 11938.15 million ops/sec
Average upload rate 0.31 KB/sec
Average download rate 1.31 KB/sec
Average turnaround time 0.14 days
Maximum daily WU quota per CPU 500/day
Results 15