Folding Forum

Wrong again. The QRB is a necessity.

Well, you know that the only way someone like tear is generating those points, with those WU, is through the QRB.
You already said his rigs were not 1000x larger.

Which is it?

Advocate for what you want.
No point in asking leading questions and then trying to refute the apparent conclusions.
Make it clear what you would like to see.

but I would much prefer people contributing to this thread focus on improving the methodology of my proposal, rather 'advocating' their own philosphical position over and over!

Reminds me of Jonathan Swift.
Lets keep on point discussing the mechanism and logistics of the modest proposal, rather than discussing the underlying presuppositions.

Again, it is a debate strategy that we have all been exposed to in recent political times.

"We all agree there is a problem, lets all just work to find the best(government)solution."
Sound familiar?

Key presuppositions that are immediately eliminated from discussion:

1. What is the problem ?
2. How big is the problem ?
3. Is there in fact really a problem at all ?
4. What are the all the ways of coming at possible causes of symptoms? What factors are actually causing the symptoms? Are we defining the right problem?(does the "problem" we have decided to address actually cause the symptoms we are addressing)
5. Who is best informed to define the problem, and best able to measure the resolution?


Discussion of a "formula" without knowing which variables or even the desired solution seems like a very advanced math exercise to me.

I'm helping to define point 1, and maybe highlight a bit of point 2.
Point 3 is a forgone conclusion after a well defined problem and size.
Point 4, my proposed solution is similar in result but different from k1wi's, so I am respecting his wishes and not discussing my solution in his thread any further. We both want to adjust the QRB in a very small way, not end it! I think we all agree that with an exponential points curve that approaches infinity, that we will eventually approach inifinity points if not adjusted slightly. If not, then infinity points becomes the same as no points. Just meaningless numbers...
Point 5 is a mix of donors and PG.

1. I outlined what I think the problem is
2. I illustrated how the problem is exponentially becoming a problem.
3. Refer to my discussion around 1.
4. I also outlined where I believe the source of the problem is and that my proposal aims to remove them systemically.
5. "PG", but they are also pretty constrained with time.

"We all agree there is a problem, lets all just work to find the best(government)solution."
Sound familiar?

I have never said we agree there is a problem, in fact I've welcomed you to disagree. There is also nothing political in this at all. If you agree there is a problem, if you agree the problem is because points are inflating in a compounded manner then help create a hypothetical solution. If not then stop trying to hinder progress. I'm not passing any laws here. At best I'm creating a proposal to hopefully give to PG, who will then be welcome to accept or reject, or even seek community/donor feedback.

You know about how research works right? You look at a system/problem, create a hypothesis about it and then you attempt to 'solve' it. I've created a hypothesis around the point system and I'm asking the community to help me solve it.

I know you don't want any change to any system, you've made your point. You said a long time ago that you'd made your point but now you seem to be hellbent on trying to neuter any discussion around anything that might lead to a modified points system, even if it has the potential of improving FAH. I don't think you've made any productive contribution to the thread for a number of pages now, all you've done is slander the thread by throwing wild, crazy implied accusations of things such as socialist undertones. That's fine, you singing the same tune over and over isn't productive but it means that in replying to attempting to refine my formula to create the solution to the problem I hypothesized is the issue remain idle.

Although I'm suspecting that's what you want? Distract and distract until I give up and then let the thread die and then when another thread gets created shout "how often are we going to talk about the points system?"

By the way, even if this thread dies then I'm just going to continue to work on it privately until I have something that covers all my bases. What will have failed then is the idea that forums are a good way to collaborating.

Thank you for the PM 7im.

What I would like to see come out of this discussion is how to keep long time folders feel like their work units still matter. I think almost everyone agrees that F@H is somewhat addictive. I can only speak for myself, and I for one would like to see a point system that encourages F@H and not turning people off to folding. Maybe what is needed is a third catagory. Such as this. Teams, HPCS & folding at work, and F@H. Maybe the whole issue is where people fold. Let the PG keep doing what they are doing. Just let the point system be better explained in the WU's and point system. I for one would like to continue F@H if the point system appears fair and without having to upgrade equipment every year or so just to maintain a certain amount of PPD.

I commend people that can afford to upgrade their systems. My whole point is, let's not forget about user longevity and retention. I think some people are just not happy about being passed up in a month compared to folding for years.

I think that should be of high priority.

1. What is the problem ? Some People feel cheated
2. How big is the problem ? Very small a very small minority and very vocal group of folders comment 1 way or another.
3. Is there in fact really a problem at all ? .NO the current system works well.
4. What are the all the ways of coming at possible causes of symptoms? What factors are actually causing the symptoms? Are we defining the right problem?(does the "problem" we have decided to address actually cause the symptoms we are addressing) The answer to the 4th part of this question is yes The rest of this I feel are irrelevant since they are all answered by #1
5. Who is best informed to define the problem, and best able to measure the resolution? VJ / Stanford He knows what he needs and how to achieve it. He also knows he cannot win by answering any questions because he is going to make somebody mad. It is sad but us few donors put him and Stanford in a loose loose situation because of our selfish comments and actions and really do not give a rip about it or the progress of the science.

The numbers say the amount of science getting done goes up every year some say this is true some say it is false. I believe it is true and therefore see no problem. I do not mind looking at a bunch of zeros in a # but others might. I also do not believe in a handycap system never have never will. I believe if X is doing X them give him X plain and simple. Most of these discussions are nothing but political views and really have no place in science.

user longevity and retention should also be considered. F@H should be a win/win for everybody. I think everyone would agree that the science is what counts.

By the way, even if this thread dies then I'm just going to continue to work on it privately until I have something that covers all my bases. What will have failed then is the idea that forums are a good way to collaborating.

I looked at what you proposed to date.
By your own description you are trying to disconnect the points from the increase in computational power of the donor.

All normalisation does is remove the expectation that points are easier to get simply because the good people at Intel, Nvidia, AMD make exponential gains in computing performance

A measuring system that constantly redefines how it measures is not really a measuring system is it?

You are not collaborating because you are not listening to anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
That is not collaboration, that is lobbying.

K1wi behaviors are. Note support Jesse_V article in Wikipedia, all participants have a common goal.

The issue of PPD-QRB-Exponential is full of selfishness. Such matters can not be democratic. Should be directed from a higher level, in the interests of the organization.

Obviously you are a professional who knows the subject: measurements, inflation, standardization, factoring, etc.. To the layman, each item has multples technical meanings. Furthermore emosionales factors, and the higher goals of PG.

I advise you to develop and support your proposal and submit it to PG.

ESPAÑOL
K1wi las conductas son así. Note el apoyo al artículo de Jesse_V en Wikipedia, todos los participantes tienen un objetivo en común.

El tema de PPD-QRB-Exponencial está plagado de egoismos. Este tipo de asuntos NO pueden ser democráticos. Deben ser dirigidos desde un nivel superior, según los intereses de la organización.

Es obvio que Ud es un profesional que sabe del tema: mediciones, inflación, normalización, factorización, etc. Para los legos, cada item técnico tiene múltples significados. Además los factores emosionales, y los objetivos superiores de PG.

Le aconsejo que elabore y sustente su propuesta, y la presente a PG. Jorge Barrientos

Grandpa_01 wrote:1. What is the problem ? Some People feel cheated
2. How big is the problem ? Very small a very small minority and very vocal group of folders comment 1 way or another.
3. Is there in fact really a problem at all ? .NO the current system works well.
4. What are the all the ways of coming at possible causes of symptoms? What factors are actually causing the symptoms? Are we defining the right problem?(does the "problem" we have decided to address actually cause the symptoms we are addressing) The answer to the 4th part of this question is yes The rest of this I feel are irrelevant since they are all answered by #1
5. Who is best informed to define the problem, and best able to measure the resolution? VJ / Stanford He knows what he needs and how to achieve it. He also knows he cannot win by answering any questions because he is going to make somebody mad. It is sad but us few donors put him and Stanford in a loose loose situation because of our selfish comments and actions and really do not give a rip about it or the progress of the science.

The numbers say the amount of science getting done goes up every year some say this is true some say it is false. I believe it is true and therefore see no problem. I do not mind looking at a bunch of zeros in a # but others might. I also do not believe in a handycap system never have never will. I believe if X is doing X them give him X plain and simple. Most of these discussions are nothing but political views and really have no place in science.

Not your thread. You don't get to make up whatever answers fit your only your personal viewpoint.

7im wrote:

Grandpa_01 wrote:1. What is the problem ? Some People feel cheated
2. How big is the problem ? Very small a very small minority and very vocal group of folders comment 1 way or another.
3. Is there in fact really a problem at all ? .NO the current system works well.
4. What are the all the ways of coming at possible causes of symptoms? What factors are actually causing the symptoms? Are we defining the right problem?(does the "problem" we have decided to address actually cause the symptoms we are addressing) The answer to the 4th part of this question is yes The rest of this I feel are irrelevant since they are all answered by #1
5. Who is best informed to define the problem, and best able to measure the resolution? VJ / Stanford He knows what he needs and how to achieve it. He also knows he cannot win by answering any questions because he is going to make somebody mad. It is sad but us few donors put him and Stanford in a loose loose situation because of our selfish comments and actions and really do not give a rip about it or the progress of the science.

The numbers say the amount of science getting done goes up every year some say this is true some say it is false. I believe it is true and therefore see no problem. I do not mind looking at a bunch of zeros in a # but others might. I also do not believe in a handycap system never have never will. I believe if X is doing X them give him X plain and simple. Most of these discussions are nothing but political views and really have no place in science.

Not your thread. You don't get to make up whatever answers fit your only your personal viewpoint.

Not your thread either but yet you can answer with whatever fits your own personal view?

Now is that fair?

7im wrote:I'm helping to define point 1, and maybe highlight a bit of point 2.
Point 3 is a forgone conclusion after a well defined problem and size.
Point 4, my proposed solution is similar in result but different from k1wi's, so I am respecting his wishes and not discussing my solution in his thread any further. We both want to adjust the QRB in a very small way, not end it! I think we all agree that with an exponential points curve that approaches infinity, that we will eventually approach inifinity points if not adjusted slightly. If not, then infinity points becomes the same as no points. Just meaningless numbers...
Point 5 is a mix of donors and PG.

Just for the record, I don't feel cheated. If I felt cheated I wouldn't make the proposal I'm making now. My proposal doesn't remove the QRB at all in fact it is designed to keep the PPD QRB curve, without having the point inflation that gets exponentially large.

orion wrote: Not your thread either but yet you can answer with whatever fits your own personal view?

Now is that fair?

No, it's not my thread. But are seriously trying put my 1 answer on the same level with the 5 answers from Grampa's? I didn't even try to answer the questions, except for the last one. Again, not my thread. And my one answer is supportive of the opening poster. All of Gramp's answers are contradictory and inflammatory to the topic. You tell me again which of us is being more unfair...?

For the record, I don't feel cheated either. If feel the QRB is a good system, and IS currently working. So Gramp's assumptions and conlusions are clearly way off base. My concern, and I think k1wi's concerns, are about the future. Not the present, and not the past.

vbironchef wrote:What I would like to see come out of this discussion is how to keep long time folders feel like their work units still matter.

I've been folding since the beginning of F@H over 10 years ago. I folded with the F@H 1 client. When PG came out with the F@H 2 client a new stats system was started, so my F@H 1 stats were effectively zeroed out. Was I happy about it? No. Am I still folding? Yes. Do I like the current stats system? Yes. In all these years and all these types of threads has someone come up with a better stats system? IMHO, no.

FYI, in the beginning I folded for team 33 for the first couple years. I completed over 24,000 WUs which earned me 2 million points. I recently built two 4P machines and went back to my old team. In 2 days after completing 4 bigadv WUs I earned 2 million points. Do I care that my old WUs were devalued? Get real, NO!