I'm a bit confused here. We've had the points for a long time and they've always related to how much actual work was done, thus rewarding the ppl with fast and multi-core machines. When the badges came along it was my understanding that the grid wanted to encourage everyone no matter what their computers (and wallets) could do and to give something that we all could achieve. In that context I read "days" as "days". Having a computer standing active is an effort even if it is a slower one. It still consumes power, possible makes noise and so on.

Now judging from this thread it seems I'm in a minority. In some other thread (don't remember where) there have even been hints about it being cheating when someone with a slower computer earns a badge.

If badges are to show how much scientific actual work is done, why weren't they based on the points in the first place? My suggestion: let badges be real computer (whole machine) days and let the points give the extra credit to those with big machines. Make it possible to show points in the corresponding way that badges are. But that's just my 5 cents!

To not make things too complicated, instead of changing the entire badge system is just better to add more badges.

Hello everyone. I'd like to make a comment. $0.02 or $0.05 depending upon inflation.

To standardize the "day / cpu" situation, could this be done:

When the end user's device is initially set up, the result could be checked to
determine what processor the user has, so that they are allocated into a group.

Processor groups could be created, such as;
Group1: P2/P3/P4, Single Core, 1 real
Group2: P4 HyperThreading, Dual Core, 1 real, 1 virtual
Group3: P4 Dual Core, 2 real
Group4: P4 Quad Core, 4 real
Group5: i7 HyperThreading, Octo Core, 4 real, 4 virtual

Members of Group1 receive 100% CPU time allotment per returned result time towards a badge
Members of Group2 receive 50% CPU time allotment per returned result time towards a badge
Members of Group3 receive 50% CPU time allotment per returned result time towards a badge
Members of Group4 receive 25% CPU time allotment per returned result time towards a badge
Members of Group5 receive 12.5% CPU time allotment per returned result time towards a badge

For badge purposes only, every result time would have this factor applied to acheive a "badge score".


What that would do, is look at the number of cores, and bring it down to the equivalent of one core per computer,
so that the badge is awarded on a consistent view of CPU time per 24 hour period.
Those with 1 core, receive 100% of their donated CPU time.
Those with 8 cores, receive 1/8th their donated CPU time, which scales it back down to the time of 1 core.



The other "Point" system, would not be affected, and would tally up the actual returned results as it is currently doing.
That point system, is actually adding up the returned results. More cores= more results= higher point scores.

And yes, I have an i7, and think it is only fair to apply a 12.5% factor to my results for badging purposes.
It's the point system tally that i think is more important anyway. It's showing how many results we return towards
our basic goal at FAAH.

Badges are cute incentives.


More importantly, how come no one has said, "Badges? We don' need no ehstinking badges!!"

Sounds good to me. I really like the Diamond idea posted at the beginning of this thread.

edit: I just got my first badge.

This all sounds like a heated discussion... My thoughts are that there are lots of people here who run different specs and numbers of devices. I consider myself to be a serious cruncher as I keep a close eye on my stats and keep up with the forums. I have 3 machines crunching, but they are not all "top spec", they don't run 24/7, I haven't overclocked any of them and they don't even run at 100% CPU.

Since the badges have come in, it's reignited my involvement as I now have separate project targets to hit rather than just a general crunching one. At the time of writing, I have 5 silvers that I am trying to get up to gold.

I have 2 bronzes for completed or inactive projects. The HDC one I can't do anything about, and perhaps someone can let me know if when HCMD2 starts up it will use the same badge or will be a completely separate project? I didn't do enough on Genome to get a badge and I haven't yet done enough Beta work for one. I completely missed out on the African climate project, but again will phase 2 of this come back as the same badge?

As for going "above and beyond" on some projects, I did nearly 5 years of CPU on HPF1 and am over 4 years on FAAH, both of which would have earned a gold at 90 days if the badges has been about then.

I'm coming up for 10 years of CPU time soon and I would say that around 8 years of that time comes from old single-core machines, although now I rely on dual-core more. I have only 1 single core machine which will soon "retire" and I am looking at quad options for my next device.

My thoughts on the info I got from badges are:

- I wish I'd given more time to the initial Cancer project - this is what I signed up for in the first place, but I can live with the bronze as I can now see how much time I'm putting into the next phase.
- I would have expected the badges to be based on points rather than CPU as my understanding was that this takes many factors into account - machine spec, CPU, RAM, etc... or am I just thinking pre-BOINC here?
- I'm happy that more cores=more hours. There are no restrictions on running multiple machines. At my peak I had 12 single-cores running 24/7. If someone now runs 3 quad cores for the same reason then good on them. If their quads do the same work as my long since decommissioned single-cores then they deserve the same credit.
- As much as I would not mind getting some recognition beyond Gold for my years of HPF and FAAH work, I am concerned that this might give unrealistic targets for casual crunchers, who must I'm sure be in the majority and who might be made to feel like second class citizens in the presence of people wondering around with platinum/diamond/uranium/kyrptonite/etc badges. I'm happy with both my current golds as they are.
- The bottom line: I joined WCG (and previously Grid.org) to help humanity in various ways. By introducing the badge system and giving me something to aim for, regardless of the way or levels at which they are awarded, it has encouraged me to dedicate more time and processing power to this effort. This should be the only justification.

If badges encourage more people to crunch and existing crunchers to crunch more than lets leave them as they are. If the mega-crunchers would like further recognition for their effort, then perhaps a points/cpu-time certificate (a la user-friendly ones) could be awarded on a user rather than per-project basis and maybe diplayed below the badges?