Jean,
We don't always agree in how we see things but I agree with you 100% on this. I'd also like to toss in that any "midway" change in the credit system in a project skews the entire standings by whatever the percentage of change is.
Now I'm one of those people who falls somewhere in the middle of how people are seen: IE: Teams chasing points or people just doing the science.
I'm on a team and yes, we compete but the projects worthiness FAR outweighs any points system to me and I expect to most serious crunchers but at the same time you need a steady, understood and fair points system in effect.
I would strongly caution against changing the awards system this far into the project.
As to BOINC cross project compatibility I could care less.
If I wanted maximum points I wouldn't be here I'd be doing some project that gave you 2000 BOINC points per hour per core for counting tiddlywinks or something just as useless.
What we do here is important and we do this work by choice, not for numbers.
Competition is fun and I beleive a points system is an integral part of any DC project as it gives many motivations to people.
Nothing more boring than sitting watching a PC do it's work.
Would you beleive that my almost 80 year old Mother got involved when XS did our little supercomputer deal in May with her stock AMD 940 system and I see her checking the stats daily to see how close she is to her first million WCG points.
That's God's truth and a howl to see.
Now she wants me to build her a "better machine" so it will do more per day..

I am wondering if we should have two different type of BOINC credit ratings - one that is done using standard processors and one that is done using the kind we currenly don't have any application that supports GPU. If these were kept separate, we could see a fairer ranking scores and comparision among those that don't use GPU.

Randzo I do agree with all what you said except for this point.
It is the same as saying that we should have separate points between an old Pentium II system and a quad socket based on four octocore intel cpu's. One will do a hundred points and the other 250'000 points per day. You have data centers contributing and those who have just one cpu with one core. CPU and GPU crunch all the same. The quantity crunched is different that is all.
What counts is that everybody does contribute and crunches with what he can do. It is the combined mass effect that counts, this is why each unit contributed is important. Just to give you an example yesterday the top contributor did 7.6 Million points. And to do that you need hundreds of CPu's, many kilowatts etc. etc.
But if we look at the WCG grid daily total for yesterday we have 287 Million points. So the top contributor did just 2.6%. The aggregate contribution of the top 50 is about 20%. It is the mass effect of the thousands of smaller, slower machines that did 80% of the contribution. This means that their contribution is vital to finish the projects in an acceptable timeframe.
Forget the points, CPU GPU. All the same. Crunch Crunch

I agree that. :-)

[OT]The cows read all works of George Orwell and thought to themselves that they had not seen pigs do it either ;-) [/OT]