You have arbitrarily chosen a number of 1%; maybe you should have chosen .5% or .1% or .01% instead. PLUS you need to define how to calculate the percentage. Are you using the total members of just over 701K or using the contributing members of just under 500K? We will need to know whether these 2K members are in or out. Would you use Points of WU as the measure instead? You could blend or even average the placement in each category and even weight one category more than the others. Great responsibilities you bear.

Best of the Best infers there is a Best and also a MORE BEST. If your 1% is actually the More Best (ie: The Best of the Best), you are simply ignoring the Best, which should be first recognized so that we can acknowledge their contribution. But you haven't identified who the Best is. How can you skip over the Best? To have someone be the Best and then just ignore them seems cruel.

Once the Best is acknowledged, you can then move on to the next level, the Best of the Best. I don't understand what decisions this group is supposed to make or what management tasks this group will be required to implement, but by being the Best of the Best, they must truly be OVER-qualified to setup standards and make the rules. We can then spend time kowtowing to their accomplishments and blindly following their tenets and canons.

Then you should move on to the next level, the Fabulous of the Best of the Best. This could be the top 0.1%. At this level we are really starting to deal with the big hitters. These are the members who should really be setting the standards for others to follow. After all, they are they key part of the Best of the Best. We can't really leave it up to the Best of the Best who are not nearly as dedicated.

But really then we need to lift up the Extraordinary of the Fabulous of the Best of the Best: the 50 (or 70) members who are really laying it down each day. This is whom we should be turning to for guidance and control.

It will be really hard to have to tell the member in 51st (or 71st) place that are not really that Extraordinary but merely Fabulous. Gosh I don't want to be in your shoes have to dole out that decision. Worse than that would to be in 50th place and then fall to 51st and have to be relegated to the lower division. Tough times.

Heavily laced with extensive sarcasm Yet filled with a cohesive thread of truth

Greetings all,

First and foremost, I would like to say we are grateful for all contributions towards World Community Grid, large and small. We hope that everyone continues to contribute towards World Community Grid for years as many of you already have.

Having rules or guidelines to follow for crunches doesn't really work as every member has their own opinions on how to operate/donate their computer time. For example myself, I would like to get to 100 years of cpu time for each project, once there I focus on another, this is my individual/personal way of crunching.


I am sure others in the forums who are striving for the next badge level appreciate you not claiming results, but in the end, you can't guarantee that someone in a specific group isn't looking for the next badge, it is on the individual level.


The backend tries to make projects run evenly. If more people select a project towards the end, then it will dilute the number of results getting sent to users with multiple projects selected. It won't necessarily increase the runtime speed of a project as the backend tries to keep research projects having an even runtime (when everything is running well for projects).


WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?! first rule of crunch club is to get your friends to sign up to crunch club. Tell everyone!!! In all seriousness I know many of you have recruited many members over the years, please continue to do so! :)

cjslman and I have had numerous conversations in the past and I can tell you that his activity in the forums is to help World Community Grid. Claiming that anyone's contribution is any lesser or greater than another's contribution based solely on their runtime, points or results is not quantifying every aspect of their donation. World Community Grid depends on all of our members.

thanks,
-Uplinger

But in MCM past results were driving new WU's, so they were being analyzed years down the road. Sure there is a lag, but waiting on the scientists is better than the scientists waiting on us. 15-days could mean the life or death of many people. Say the scientists sit on the data for six months, that six months would be 15-days sooner if we finished the project 15-days sooner.

Some use others' computational resources without the others knowing, but to extend the joke, must be over-compensating and seriously deficient.

<---------- No badges to boast
A no percenter, the best of the best of the very best, MIB \infty

KLiK,
do you see anyone agreeing with you on this idea?