Good points Ingleside.

I'm not sure that SETI optimized apps really make THAT much difference, but if so then there would be no call to change things here.

I'm guessing that many people only crunch what they want regardless of points, but I'm not sure that most do. Maybe I'm just being overly skeptical about peeps motives. (Sometimes I'm just a grumpy old man. )

If there is any justification for a points adjustment then we should be able to go after both new people and those from other projects. It doesn't have to be an "either/or" type of thing. Otherwise, "Never Mind".

On a fundamental basis for the volounteering and giving, you are perfectly right.

We here at WCG sometimes like to see that what we do here is more special than others maybe because it touches "problems" that kill every day thousands of people, old and young around the world. Maybe we feel more concerned if someone in our family has been the casualty of Cancer, Dengue, HIV or other mass killers.

But you are absolutely right that there is no field in science that is more "legitimate", "valuable" or "worth the time and money" than other. Astronomy, Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, Genetics, and others, you name it are perfectly on paar.

The citeria like "legitimate", "valuable" or "worth the time and money" are purely subjective and the answer is different for each of us.

This is why some that crunch at WCG will not crunch anything else even if tomorrow WCG decides to deflate even more the point/credit ratio. And viceversa some crunching at GPUGrid or Seti or other projects will not switch at WCG if the ratio is better.

The only ones that will probably switch to whoever pays (in BOINC credits) more are those really engaged in a credit or score competition at BOINC level. These crunchers do have some powerful machines that could be useful at WCG and I see no problem to make the point/credit ratio at WCG more attractive to get them.

The problem is that if every project starts the credit inflation nothing will change in the end, simply the global volume of BOINC credits will increase but the relative position of each will basically and in gross average remain.

This is why it is better that all projects at BOINC use the same measurement standard. It should even be a strong condition of participation. A project can have like WCG its own point system, but when switching to BOINC then the conversion should be so that all BOINC projects are rated identically.

Hello Rick and NI!

Lot of kaNI!ghts (and other crunchers) are shrubbing projects which "pay" more credits and I agree with their decision - all of them pay their electricity bills, so it is really up to them to choose a project to pay for. Even thought I do not see any usefulness of it, or I see some of such projects as cheaters, i.e. "paying" inflated credits just to gain shrubbers - the best example of such projects for me is POEM.

I am shrubbing WCG because I perceive it as one of the few (if not the only one) "worth MY time and MY FAMILY money" (just to expand Hypernova's definition). Since I do not trust charities, it is my way to donate to people in need. Yes, I would like my contribution to be recognized (badges, points, credits), but within WCG only is enough for me

I think Hypernova said it all. It has to be the matter of some authority (e.g. BOINC) to set some rules for all projects using its name/infrastructure/marketing. Otherwise, it could all finish in Silicon Hell .

All the best and

I wonder if you (or others) would be saying the same thing if you had a loved one wasting away with cancer or a son with muscular dystrophy. To be participating in ANY grid project just for for the points is egotistically stupid. We volunteer our spare (and in many cases, not so spare) computing time to help science find answers to diseases that afflict our world. Or find new energy sources. Or how use/filter water in a more efficient manner. The points and badges are completely useless. Making decisions based on points, therefore is also useless. As for costing nothing... I would prefer that the technicians be working on improving the crunching process, making it better/more efficient than thinking on how to setup the points system.

CJSL

Crunching for a better future...

Hello Rick,

I think I understood what you wanted to say in OP, but I probably expressed myself in less-understandable way (damn languages, I hope there will be only one in near future ). I did the same - stated my motivators.

You are right. The simpliest way to gain new crunchers is to give them something for free (e.g. points). As a former CMO, you are much more aware of value of customers gained via promotions (as discounts, contests...) than me. You will get lot of them but their decay rate will be high. So soon you need to offer them higher discounts, more expensive prizes in contests, etc. It is good for sales push at the eng of quarters, but not as good for mid- nor longterm strategy.

On the other hand, loyal cusomers which prefer your brand because of some "deeper", "soft" reasons are ensuring you value. They are with your brand to stay with it, not to go to whomever offers them "goulash and beer".

As far as I can evaluate this during my less-than-one-year membership here, WCG is is improving in both marketing and PR and strengthening "soft" reasons-why within its "customers" (aka volunteers / crunchers) base.

Let do the simple comparison of WCG to POEM (based on BOINCStats). While WCG is "paying" small credits, POEM on the other hand hugely inflated.

- The number of active users: WCG 75,146, POEM 6,606. WCG vs. POEM: +1,038%
- The number of active hosts: WCG 226,110, POEM 10,808. WCG vs. POEM: +1,992%
- Computing power (calculation as done in WCG) is more or less the same. WCG 1.32 PetaFLOPS with very limited GPGPU possibilities, POEM 1.33 PetaFLOPS with emphasis on GPGPU crunching and with highly inflated credits.

Which customer base would you rather have as a CMO of any company?

Cheers and NI!

Edit to correct typos