Paul D. Buck wrote: > On Sep 28, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Lynn W. Taylor wrote: > >> The benchmark affects the estimated run time, and the amount of work >> downloaded. It affects credit, and credit is "fun" but it's not >> science. > > Then you are also guilty of not reading the proposal. I have always > said that while running calibration tasks that the same compensation > would be paid for a calibration task as for any other task. In fact, > I said that it could qualify for a bonus to encourage participation in > the system. In that we have resistance as you and John express > because you don't seem interested in any attempt to improve the > operation of the system as a whole.
I'm not talking about awarding credit, bonus credits, better assignment of work, or anything else along those lines. When you come back with "I've always said that while running calibration tasks the same compensation...." it shows that you missed my question. I wasn't asking about credit. You did the same thing in the other thread when I raised a separate issue about continuous downloads and you told me that I had your issue wrong. BOINC is a black box. A project dumps work units and a science application into the box, and results pour out. I'm asking only about the results. Unless I'm badly mistaken, that was John's question as well. We can all get excited about how BOINC does (or doesn't) work well, but all the projects care about are results. _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
