Doesn't WCG use the "new credit" system that the BOINC developers created?
I believe SETI@home uses the same system.

Check here for a comparison:http://boincstats.com/en/stats/-1/cpcs
Cheers

If I'm reading the chart correctly, it validates what my point. WCG's credit for equal computer time donated, is less than almost all other projects. Rick

Competition has been a very valuable part of attracting and keeping crunchers since the early days of volunteer distributed computing. But, as Scribe mentioned above, some project admins are offering ridiculous credits to attract users. Points become worthless when that happens and I’m happy WCG isn’t falling into the quagmire.

Having said that however, I would like to suggest that increasing WCG’s BOINC credit to a reasonable degreee would almost certainly increase participation here. My understanding is that Dr. Anderson of BOINC fame has always strongly encouraged projects to stay within certain guidelines regarding points. SETI@Home has therefore always done so and could be used as a model IMO.

Some people are crunching mainly to help humanity while others are in it for the competition. Both viewpoints are perfectly valid. Why not go after the points people in a reasonable way.

(BTW, I can think of three possible negatives to this. IBM might have to invest in many new servers to handle the load, the admins here would see their workload increase, and we would all have to fight harder to get badges before projects are quickly completed.
Uhh.
.
.
on second thought lets keep things as they are.)