Hi, well I think all projects realize the importance of credits, it's really my fault for trying to correct things from all the problems when I was away in Berlin last week and we ran into troubles with some workunits I generated (the Fortran namelists errors etc). It would have been better to just let the few runs through with double-credit than to try to correct them all and knock out some beta tester credits etc. So I don't plan on doing that again!

Way back on the "original CPDN" we underestimated the "value" or importance of "credits" since we assumed people would be more interested in the scientific aspects, watching their earth model run etc. But of course we quickly found how big "credits" are! And now with BOINC we can hopefully be able to cross-compare credits on projects etc.

So I'm sorry for those of you who feel you lost credits but I think it would be prudent for me not to try and recalc things and just keep them going the "normal BOINC way" instead of me trying to recompute from trickles periodically (which is how the "old CPDN" was -- i.e. I would generate stats every four hours based on the accumulated trickle info, whereas BOINC is more efficient, i.e. "piecemeal" additions to a user/host/team). Although I notice I didn't get many complaints from people who had extra credit added! ;-)

If people are still angry about credits -- you have to realize that (in my personal opinion, so don't take it out on CPDN or BOINC or SETI) this is an entirely new computing paradigm and technology --- so it's like taking a trip on a newly designed rocketship that runs on seawater or space dust, and then complaining when you get there that "it's too cold outside!" ;-)

Also I think our board "tone" has been pretty civil and I hope it stays that way. We represent a truly international project (just look at the "User Map") not only in all the "end-users," but those of us working on the project (I'm American, Tolu's Nigerian, DaveF New Zealand, plenty of UK people of course, we are also working with people in France, Germany, US, Norway, etc).

As Richard has published his letter on an open board I'm not sure whether the rest of us should comment or not - one of the features we would like on this board, as well as the main CPDN one, is a personal messaging option to remove ambiguity!

My only comments would be that many dedicated CPDNers are well aware of the downside of the credit system and the way that it can cause destructive bitterness and resentment. But there is a plenty on the CPDN site to enable participants to feel that they are taking part in something worthwhile, there is information about individual runs and download tools to analyse results (or to turn into cat toys) and a discussion board that is not obsessed with who has the most and biggest equipment.

I have said this before on the SETI boards, but it got no reply. Distributed computing has three components.

1. The actual scientific problem being addressed (at CPDN this would be the climate models).

2. The technical aspect of the computing (i.e., the computer science behind the projects).

3. The social aspect of distributed computing (why do people do it, who are they, who doesn't, how can they be motivated to do it, etc.)

While all of the projects that I have particpated in have displayed expertise in the first two, NONE of the projects has addressed the third component. SETI@Home's 'web poll' is an absolute joke by social science standards. While projects like predictor and LHC are new to the game (and thus have appropriately prioritized the first 2 components), one must question why no effort has been made by CPDN (and SETI for that matter) on the third component? If more attention had been given to this area, then I suspect that statements such as:

>Way back on the "original CPDN" we underestimated the "value" or importance of >"credits" since we assumed people would be more interested in the scientific >aspects, watching their earth model run etc. But of course we quickly found how >big "credits" are! And now with BOINC we can hopefully be able to cross-compare >credits on projects etc.

would be less common.

Richard, I presume as you have still left your post on the board, that this was your intention!

Anyhow, the credit system is there to provide/promote healthy competition between teams and individuals, you do not have to be interested in the science behind the project to participate (users choice).

At the last estimate and although there are some 5m users registered with Seti@home, there are only around 1.5m regular users crunching wu's, that's a lot less whiners than you suggest.

I also agree with Carl that the "board tone" here at CPDN has been pretty civil, but your remark "Given the hatred displayed to Canadians and Europeans on some of the SetiBOINC threads by some Americans and Brits (as I am certain this suggetion would be provocative)" I do feel is in general uncalled for, there are times when the lack of language awareness by posters and readers conflict and differences of opinion exist, also the "national humour" of posters can also be misunderstood by others as it simply goes over their heads and is lost somewhere around 50,000 ft/m.

As a well travelled person due to my time in the military, and having stayed in Canada for a time too (Ft. Wainwright) back in 1977, I found myself even considering a transfer to the CAF (which you could do back then) purely because of my high opinion and love of Canada as a country, unfortunately family circumstances prevented this from happening, which I now regret. However us Scots and Canadians were and have never been renowned for our droll sometimes dry humour, a bit like whiskey, it's an aquired taste. don't let yourself be angered by a few remarks which may/may not have been someones attempt at humour just remember there will always be someone who will laugh at and have a joke about the Irish, Scots, Welsh, English, and there will always be those that are more arrogant about it than others, those are the deliberate racists, this is what we must not condone anywhere on the boards.

Don't let the B%$&£*~'s get you down, go for a pitcher of beer or hit those wonderful gold medal fishing lakes of Alberta (I still have my old licence as a reminder) ;) Also don't be put off by the wingers we have still got to let them post, have their say, do their thing etc, they go away eventually.

Hope you had a good nights sleep and are ready fighting fit for a new assault on the boards LOL.

Regards
Willie

Greetings from Scotland

> 3. The social aspect of distributed computing (why do people do it, who are
> they, who doesn't, how can they be motivated to do it, etc.)
>
> While all of the projects that I have particpated in have displayed expertise
> in the first two, NONE of the projects has addressed the third component.

Actually, this <i>has</i> been discussed at length by us in the CPDN public fora. There are people who do it for the science, some to learn more about climate, some out of altruism, some to feel part of a worldwide endeavour, some out of a sense of competitiveness, etc. Some regard the stats as vital, others hate the idea. The CPDN site has been redesigned to address as many of these diverse wants as possible, and whilst nothing is perfect, it does better than others.

The problem with BOINC stats, as was pointed out in the original message, is that they are also going to be imperfect whatever Carl does, because of the nature of the beast.

well I think the main problem in ignoring the "social sciences" aspect is:
(1) nobody has money for this sort of thing, (2) nobody gets funding for this sort of thing (well hardly ever), (3) even if you show that these sort of "social" issues are important it's not scientific enough for the physicists in our case, or presumably the biologists on folding/predictor, or the astronomers on seti; or for the computer scientists overall who just want to hear about "grid computing" breakthroughs etc. I had a paper that had a lot of the social science discussion but I couldn't get it in anywhere so I gave up.

So we're kind of between a rock and a hard place -- too techie/geeky for the social scientists, not considered "cutting edge" for some reason by the comp-sci/grid "intelligentsia", and the lead scientists just want to get the results cranked out, although in our case we had the "Open Day" where we presented results, talked about things etc from end-users through scientists (many of whom are both).

sorry...double post

@Andrew

Your point is well taken (I am new to CPDN since BOINC). Nevertheless, the forums only provide an indication of the most vocal users. Nothing is known about the silent masses...Also, the social aspects about distributed computing go far beyond the issue of a credting system (though that is definitiely part of it).

@Carl

I agree with you about why this isn't happening (though mostly with point 3). Regarding funding, there is money and a set of researchers interested in such things, though usually they operate under the rubric of interest in the "internet". A look at some sociology journals, but especailly communication journals, would allow one to find such researchers. You might also look toward the literature on volunteering as an additional source. I would also hope that you would reconsider and try sending your paper to one of those journals (I would love to read a copy if it is available??).

Let me also clarify that I do not think it is the ultimate responsibility of CPDN to be the driving force behind such an effort. BOINC is the distributed computing paradigm here, and it's developers are responsible for examining the social science aspects (or at least finding a collaborator to do so). However, given Dr. Anderson's stated primary interest in the technical aspects of distributed computing (from his "Open Day" comments), I do not expect it to ever be addressed.

Finally, thanks for your response. It is nice to participate in a project where legitimate critique (and praise) fosters civil discussion.

Richard,

&gt; *** Actually, no, but as Mr. Christensen did not delete this, and there are a
&gt; number of interesting responses; I thought "what the hell".***

"Thought that was the case"

&gt; ***The critical point is 'healty' competition - which it is for some and not
&gt; for others. I think there is too strong an emphasis on credits. My apologies
&gt; to Mr. Christensen, but who really needs to look credits up on a WAP enabled
&gt; cell phone? This, to me, is unhealthy.***

"Agreed" - (sorry Carl)

&gt; ***Okay, given my low-ball estimate would then be 31,250 daily whiners
&gt; whinging about their credits; the obvious solution would be to open a 4th
&gt; forum titled Credit Problems and then enforce a total exclusion of the
&gt; bitching in the other 3 fora.***

"Agreed and the use of moderators"

&gt; ***No, I have not yet observed in on the European sites only the SetiBOINC
&gt; site where it can get very nasty. The reason it starts, seems to be when
&gt; SetiBOINC is down and/or credits are not forth-coming.***

"Only due to the lack of News or information from Admin, which always seems to be slow in forthcoming, these days the old saying no news is good news is not enough"

&gt; ***Aye, though we have forts in city/town names, Wainwright is a CFB. You
&gt; arrived the year I departed the militia.***

"A bit out of the way though, so were you a member of Princess Pat's Bn?"

&gt; ***Would you really have wanted endless rotations to Cyprus?***

"We had NI but did Cyprus as well as others"

&gt; ***Nope, I am talking about vehement and out-right racism that is utterly
&gt; offensive and does not belong on a site devoted to scientific research.
&gt; Indeed, the one fellow, after making NAZI remarks, decamped and, I assume,
&gt; signed himself up as a new user. A real Yob!***

"Agreed this is why we need moderators"

&gt; ***Ah, the eternal optimist. Actually, I highly doubt they will ever go away
&gt; as it seems to be their sole purpose in life - to criticise anything and
&gt; all.***

"LOL - At your service Sir"

&gt; ***Thank you but, alas, no. One of the paper delivery drivers seemes to have
&gt; hit a localised patch of ice while doing a 3-point turn and dinged something
&gt; which awoke me. I believe it was only his car.***

"A bad day allround then"

Sorry you didn't register in time for LHC, it is a particularly well run, efficient and pleasantly polite project (not saying that CPDN isn't, honest) it's going public near the end of the month, so we shall see if that changes!

Regards once more

Willie

&gt; ***The critical point is 'healty' competition - which it is for some and not
&gt; for others. I think there is too strong an emphasis on credits. My apologies
&gt; to Mr. Christensen, but who really needs to look credits up on a WAP enabled
&gt; cell phone? This, to me, is unhealthy.***

hello from germany. :-)
first of all, sorry for my bad school-english. ^^
where do you see the unhealthieness in the existence of credits? do you think, it's better for the project, when only one fith (approximately) of the users take part? there are so many teams fighting against others. without any statistics there would be no competition. without competition there would be much fewer users. fewer users means fewer results. not really healthy for the project itself...
<a href="http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/team_display.php?teamid=11">
<img src="http://www.fbs-stadtliga-cb.de/pics/wtbanner_sn45g.gif"></a>

Don't be so harch on the credits! The credits are here for the fun, and for the attraction to the projects. You can join a project for the science, or for the credits (or some other reasons). Either way: the projects gets work done, and people are having fun with it.

It's like the olympics: Participating is more important then winning... Then why the heck are they trying so hard to be first (and break some world-record at the same time).

I like to watch at my personal stats every day, to see how much I have done, and how well I'm doing compared to others. I see no harm in that.
I'm also very interested in the science. I believe that there are some aliens out there. I value the work of predictor, and I see the importance of CPDN. I have a litte trouble understanding what LHC is all about, and how we can benefit from that, but hey, why not give them 5% of my CPU time.

Just my 2 cents (and please ignore that I maintain BOINCstats ;) )
====================
<a href="http://www.boincstats.com/">BOINC user, team and country stats</a>

With such a broad spectrum of users, it's inevitable that you will find a healthy number of people that are more interested in the competition/numbers aspect than science.

I do not think this will be lessened by switching to the one credit per WU concept. This is easy to see with S@H classic. The lower number = less competition theory simply doesn't float if history is any judge.

At least with BOINC there are several checks to keep cheaters at bay, so at least the credit figures represent real work done towards the project. Cheating ran rampant on the classic project. Lots of people had big numbers, but precious little actual work to back them up. I happen to like the new system better for this reason alone.

I personally think the credits are fun, but that's definitely not my emphasis for running the various projects.

<a href="http://www.boinc.dk/index.php?page=user_statistics&amp;project=cpdn&amp;userid=355"><img border="0" height="80" src="http://355.cpdn.sig.boinc.dk?188"></a>

&gt; ***Out of curiousity, how much do you assign Seti? For me it is 9% of my
&gt; CPU***
&gt;
My assigments at the moment are:
CPDN: 44.25%
Predictor: 0.44% (this is in error because the project is down, it will be the same as SETI when it comes back online)
SETI: 44.25%
LHC: 11.06%

====================
<a href="http://www.boincstats.com/">BOINC user, team and country stats</a>

Want to tell you something about: <i><b>3. The social aspect of distributed computing (why do people do it, who are they, who doesn't, how can they be motivated to do it, etc.)</b></i>

I joined Set@Home in 01.01.2000. Several days later, I discovered a small user-group in my native language (german) and joined this group.

First, they helped me to get things working fine, but there was much more (and is still much more) and this usergroup started to organize local meetings. Since my beginning, there have been a lot of meetings.

From this there was another idea born: A yearly meeting of Seti@Home users in Germany.

So far, as I know, from the social contacts, some people found a new girl-/boy-friend and I know of one couple that has already married.

Isn't this social development ? For my feeling, social aspects have not to be developed by the project-leaders, but by the participants themselve.

You want to take a look on groups / meetings pages, I have told about ? Sorry, they are all in german ...

The small user-group, I'm a member of is called <a href="http://www.seti-nordlichter.de">nordlichter</a>

A page with the meeting-history of the nordlichter is <a href="http://www.seti-nordlichter.de/treffen.html">here</a>

The page about meetings from Seti@Home-Users all about germany is <a href="http://www.setitreffen.de/">here</a>



<a href="http://www.boinc.dk/index.php?page=user_statistics&amp;project=cpdn&amp;userid=34"><img border="0" height="080" src="http://34.cpdn.sig.boinc.dk?188"></a>

Supporting <b>BOINC</b>, because it is really a <b>great concept !</b>

&gt; Wäre es besser wenn nur 1/5 dabei bleiben? Wahrscheinlich weil wenn SetiBOINC
&gt; voll operationell ist, werden die Meckere alle wieder dahin fliegen. Wenn es
&gt; nur Wettegewerb über Punkte als den Grund ist, werden alle Vereinen und Leute
&gt; die so denken dann nur bei dem Projekt wo die schnell Punkte sammeln können
&gt; bleiben.

hey, super deutsch! ich wäre froh, so gut englisch sprechen zu können. kompliment! *thumbsup*

if seti is ready to work again, all the credit hungry users will leave cpdn, for sure. but all the teams, that are active only here at cpdn will stay. and for all those teams the credits are quite important...
<a href="http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/team_display.php?teamid=11">
<img src="http://www.fbs-stadtliga-cb.de/pics/wtbanner_sn45g.gif"></a>