LHC@home

Not that you get a complaint from me, but what is said in the FAQ doesn't hold anymore: Users that returned identical results will get same amount of credit, which is an average of claimed credit when lowest and highest value is ignored.

One of my own results, shows that the two highest are added up and divided by two.

Littlebouncer's unit here, shows the same behaviour.

:)

---

Jord

BOINC FAQ Service

> Not that you get a complaint from me, but what is said in the FAQ doesn't hold
> anymore: Users that returned identical results will get same amount of
> credit, which is an average of claimed credit when lowest and highest value is
> ignored.
>
> One of my own
> results, shows that the two highest are added up and divided by two.
>
> Littlebouncer's
> unit here, shows the same behaviour.
>
> :)
>
@ ageless
That WU was crunched with CC 4.25; the 'Flops' now showing for this host is from CC 4.19!
otherwise I see nothing spec. calc. and validation as it should (calculation for the granted credit = arithmetical middle of the first three returns not the median!)

greetz littleBouncer

---

It shouldn't matter what BOINC version is being used, since BOINC itself doesn't crunch anything. It's the LHC application that crunches the LHC units. But outside that, go check the links in somewhat more detail.

The LHC FAQ specifically says they throw away the lowest and highest claimed credits (which is an average of claimed credit when lowest and highest value is ignored.) when calculating the granted credit, yet they don't. I've checked a couple of people's latest results, all show the same behaviour. I used your result as an extra example, not as something evil and bad.

---

Jord

BOINC FAQ Service

> Not that you get a complaint from me, but what is said in the FAQ doesn't hold
> anymore: Users that returned identical results will get same amount of
> credit, which is an average of claimed credit when lowest and highest value is
> ignored.
>
> One of my own
> results, shows that the two highest are added up and divided by two.
>

Good point. There was a bug in the credit computation. Should be fixed now, though previous credit assignments will not be changed.

---

Markku Degerholm
LHC@home admin

> I've checked a couple of people's latest results, all show the same behaviour.

a. If this happens to all of us there is nothing to worry about it (only there is a different way of calc. the granted credit).

b. More important I think: The CERN-team has choosen this methode to calc. because of the 0-CPU-timed WU's returned (you see if there are 2 of 3 zero's, one left at zero , than 0 credits are granted....)
(I thought at that possibility, when I noticed myself this behaviour .. oh my remindings...)

-no offense at all-

greetz lB

> But outside that, go check the links in somewhat more detail.
>
> The LHC FAQ specifically
> says they throw away the lowest and highest claimed credits (which is an
> average of claimed credit when lowest and highest value is ignored.) when
> calculating the granted credit, yet they don't. I've checked a couple of
> people's latest results, all show the same behaviour.

It seems to work now 'right'!
example

Good work team!

keep on crunching littleBouncer