Paul D. Buck wrote: [...] > > The economic uses of credit awards and using it to guide behavior is > pretty much been abandoned by everybody but the participants ...
Perhaps the Computer Scientists have never looked upon the credits as a useful metric or even as a useful indicator other than for gaining grant money. Hence, just as in Marketing, almost any 'fiction' is adequate. > The problem is that Eric's script will mean that over a 4 year life of > a computer the CS it earns in year four will take more processing time > to obtain. That is the flaw ... as the performance average increases > the award goes down. So the CS I earned when I started BOINC 5-6 > years ago, what ever it was, took less processing power over time than > the same CS today (all other things being equal). > > That means that the earnings of a new person cannot be "fairly" > compared to mine. ... And it is the doubt about the "fairness" that causes great grief and angst amongst the participants who care to consider such things... If we can compare against a definitive standard, then the question becomes that of *measurably* "how accurate" for deciding "how fair". Hopefully then, no further angst and argument. We might even get some new science out of the (calibrated, reliably measurable) credits! Regards, Martin -- -------------------- Martin Lomas m_boincdev ml1 co uk.ddSPAM.dd -------------------- _______________________________________________ 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.
