New Projects

[Saenger]

Goldbach is just sending out useless UpperCase WUs en masse, to keep such a destructive project in the stats is imho a bad sign.

It's OK for projects to do some initial testing "in the wild" with UpperCase, but after a few thousand, at most for about 1000 credits, it's just wilful stealing from other projects and it's obvious that the project is just a scam.
Even BelgianBeer needed only ~650 credits to get it all running smooth and rightfully stopped than because nothing useful was developed. Goldbach has so far crunched nearly 600.000 of the useless stuff, 1000x of what was needed by the total amateurs of BelgianBeer.

IMHO a stats page that includes such scam-projects isn't a good stats page.
You can argue whether the science behind some projects is something worthwhile (imho prime search isn't worth a single CPU-second), but at least they are doing science, Goldbach is doing nothing!

[Bok]

I agree they are doing useless work, which is why I have it attached to one machine with a low resource share and that's exactly how it should be in my opinion. Let the users decide what they want to run, they can make their own decisions after all - who are you or we to 'police' this. My policy is to display the stats not pick and choose which ones I feel are correct and should be included. I do not condone an 'overseer' approach. If we start down that path, then where does it end... ? Should we dilute the ridiculous amounts of credits that MilkyWay gave out ? Cosmology? Even Primegrid manual give out pretty high credits.. No, I'm not going down that path, I much prefer to let users decide on their own.

Isn't that very nice coming over here and telling us we have a 'bad' stats page.

Bok

[Saenger]

Isn't that very nice coming over here and telling us we have a 'bad' stats page.

Up until now I considered you a good stats page, and my suggestion was only to let you be this. You really don't care whether a project is just a scam or doing real work?

I don't want a judgement about the science done in the project, but no science at all is soemthing quite different. Fake projects, that only steal CPU-power for worthless junk should not be supported by the communities, they should be named and shamed.

The credit discussion in general is something that should be sorted in the project mailing list in Berkeley. There were (and still are in some areas) irregularities, but at least those projects delivered science, not plain junk.

[Bok]

I would not consider it a fake project though. That's where I think your argument falls down. The admin is pretty responsive and adamant that he will be putting out real work at some point. Yes, the UpperCase app is useless and he should have only put out a few wu's, I completely agree, but that, in itself, does not make it a 'scam'. I think you should take the argument to Goldbach instead. Once they start doing real work they should reset the credits - problem solved.

Start a poll if you like and let the users decide whether to remove Goldbach from the stats.

As I say, I don't want to police it, but I would respect the wishes of the community.

Bok

[Saenger]

I think you should take the argument to Goldbach instead.

I don't want an account there, I'm no fan of such math projects, and as they haven't included BOINC-wide-teams yet I'm not in there involuntary as well.
I have asked some of my team-mates to start a discussion over there, I hope they will do so.

[Chuck]

Is this the same Goldbach as in the Goldbach Conjecture in mathematics relating to prime number searching ???

[LAURENU2]

Up until now I considered you a good stats page, and my suggestion was only to let you be this. You really don't care whether a project is just a scam or doing real work?

I don't want a judgement about the science done in the project, but no science at all is soemthing quite different. Fake projects, that only steal CPU-power for worthless junk should not be supported by the communities, they should be named and shamed.

The credit discussion in general is something that should be sorted in the project mailing list in Berkeley. There were (and still are in some areas) irregularities, but at least those projects delivered science, not plain junk.

It sound a little like you want us to be a Big Brother to the DC world.
From what I know Free-DC was founded on the Idea of Freedom to help out in what ever project we or we as a whole wanted
And that is why the members of Free-DC put out World Class Stats for ALL Projects.
If you don't like our Stats you are free to get the Info elsewhere

The Change you want to bring about should start at the source not here.

[zombie67]

Let the users decide what they want to run, they can make their own decisions after all - who are you or we to 'police' this. My policy is to display the stats not pick and choose which ones I feel are correct and should be included. I do not condone an 'overseer' approach. If we start down that path, then where does it end... ?

+1

Stat sites should be completely neutral. Publish everything, and let the users decide. After all, it is up to the users to decide what is "worthwhile". The definition of that word is different for each person.

[Chuck]

+1

Stat sites should be completely neutral. Publish everything, and let the users decide. After all, it is up to the users to decide what is "worthwhile". The definition of that word is different for each person.

May I ask if reversing that is equally valid? Let the users (Free-DC membership) decide (perhaps a poll?) and let it land where it lands UNLESS there is a resource and/or technical limit that Bok could inform us of?

If I interpret your '+1' as a vote in the 'Pro' column, then aren't you voting, hence invalidating your own statement? Free-DC, to me, is a team. A TOP-KNOTCH Team with, imho, the best stats in all of DC-land. But, we are a team that competes in projects with others all to advance whatever we are working on. The 'stats' are our instant gratification and metric as to how good we really are in what we do and how/where we have to improve.

I'm not trying to provoke an argument, but may I ask you to consider:

a) we check out the details of the project, even with a test user or two.
b) report and vote whether to participate or not.
c) Let the decision to participate / membership support decide if stats are desired/needed.



C

[zombie67]

Hi Chuck,

I think you may be combining two separate issues: Team vs. stats.

I am talking about stat sites in general. I believe they should be completely neutral. Just my opinion. Of course, they are free to do whatever they choose.

As for team stat sites, of course, the team should decide. Not us non-team members.

To be clear, I am not a member of this team, and neither is Saenger.

[Chuck]

Hi Chuck,

I think you may be combining two separate issues: Team vs. stats.

I am talking about stat sites in general. I believe they should be completely neutral. Just my opinion. Of course, they are free to do whatever they choose.

As for team stat sites, of course, the team should decide. Not us non-team members.

To be clear, I am not a member of this team, and neither is Saenger.

Z,
Thanks for pointing that out... I was on the edge as to which way to read it.

I agree with Bok (back a few posts) and with the addition by Lauren.

Thanks for the time and have a good one. All is cool & understood here now.

Please consider my previous post as 'clarified' and pushed into appropriate context.
(it's getting late here and I didn't quite say what I wanted to say).


C.