https://www.boincstats.com/stats/2/project/detail/

Last update user XML	2023-05-01 19:00:17 UTC (71 days 23:35:04 old)
Last update host XML	2023-04-30 18:50:17 UTC (72 days 23:45:04 old)
Last update team XML	2023-05-01 19:00:17 UTC (71 days 23:35:04 old)

Yes, we know.

I think I've pretty much come to the end of my credit investigations: my conclusions have been accepted by the project, but it'll take me some time to write it up for a public report. In the meantime, read thread 9199.

I take it this credit jump was for people running certain tasks, ones I didn't? Because my credit Boinc shows in it's own display is 2,555,000. The latest stats output to Boincstats is 2,385,000, not much change. There have also been no jumps in historic data from Boincstats.

So you've worked out a fix?

Wait for the public report.

Wait for the public report.

Why the secrecy?

It's not secret. I've spent two months working on this, and so has the project. We both needed calm, and a clear space in which to think, while we tried to unravel several interconnected issues. And I, for one, didn't want to be distracted by having reply to reply to hecklers like you on the sidelines. I have other things to cope with in my life at the same time, as do the project staff. I judged it better to wait until I had reconciled all the discrepancies, rather than posting hypothetical partial explanations and having to withdraw them in the light of further information and understanding. That's the scientific method.

I have now got the go-ahead from the project team for a public report, and it's coming: but it has to be written first. And it's going to be difficult to address all the various attitudes to credit found on these boards - from my own rather puritan view that mathematical accuracy is paramount, to the perpetual cries of More! More! More!

It's not secret. I've spent two months working on this, and so has the project. We both needed calm, and a clear space in which to think, while we tried to unravel several interconnected issues. And I, for one, didn't want to be distracted by having reply to reply to hecklers like you on the sidelines. I have other things to cope with in my life at the same time, as do the project staff. I judged it better to wait until I had reconciled all the discrepancies, rather than posting hypothetical partial explanations and having to withdraw them in the light of further information and understanding. That's the scientific method.

I have now got the go-ahead from the project team for a public report, and it's coming: but it has to be written first. And it's going to be difficult to address all the various attitudes to credit found on these boards - from my own rather puritan view that mathematical accuracy is paramount, to the perpetual cries of More! More! More!

Fair enough. "It's complicated" or "I want to be sure first" would have sufficed :-)

And if you (yeah right) want my view on credit, it should be how much work is done, if that can be measured accurately. Who cares if it was a fast CPU taking 2 days or a slow one taking a week, you've still done the same amount of science. Any other viewpoint would be nonsensical.