| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Support
Forum: Website Support
Thread: Change to the Project Progress Bars |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 164
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
This method has been proposed at least 10 times over the past 18 months to two years and they refuse to do it. There's this fixation on the project end date that nobody, including the researchers, know. There are too many variables that impact that date including variables that nobody knows at any give point in time. They're chasing unicorns. If the WU generating script has access to the number of batches sent by the researchers (like as a check that they all got generated correctly) then the entire process would be automated as everything else is a calculated value. But, I'm sure they are ignoring this thread as the decision has been made and implemented. Case closed. Remember they are heads down on the #FakeNews climate projects.
|
||
|
|
KLiK
Master Cruncher Croatia Joined: Nov 13, 2006 Post Count: 3103 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Personally, I fail to understand the desire to keep around a percentage based system that is admitted to be inherently inaccurate.  From the original post... "Our attempt to estimate a percentage complete for each active project has therefore not been truly representative of how far along a project is" Sure you can run with the percentage they give you, but the percentage itself is basically guesswork. Hi, as you can see, the calc of percentages listed here: https://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewpostinthread?post=608599 is pretty much the same as WCG calculated it. Not much discrepancy! Yes, there were some projects that got arranged to have ECD (total number of batches) set & not made to another number, as somebody (from researchers) added new science (like HSTB). But it's more "lazy work" than the true pointing that % don't work. Check image:  Also, yes the ECD are changing...so does your time transferring 536GB from 1 disk to the other. But you still get some accurate ECD, which gets more accurate as you get to the end of transfer. Same thing happens here. ECD change from my posts (check upper link), but they continue to go in one or the other way. & people are informed, so they can plan to have badges - which for some got to be the game here on this community. For all those who expect for ECD to be fix, they are just clueless what we're doing here, how does user ratio is changing on WCG & how the temp. oscillates between seasons. Nothing is certain in the future, so neither are ECDs. But they do give some idea for the plan & achievement of goals (badges). So as the percentage was inaccurate, in a way you might have dioptre of -1 on your eyes, this system implemented feels like having blindfold over your eyes. People should really think about what they want from this community & donations? Like I've said it before, if something don't change, I'm off to another project. Which one? Don't know, but maybe something with physics this time?  |
||
|
|
Glen David Short
Senior Cruncher Joined: Nov 6, 2008 Post Count: 184 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Like I've said it before, if something don't change, I'm off to another project. Hey KLiK don't quit! Overall WCG is a good project, even if they are not listening to us on this point, maybe they will come around in the future, after the climate change projects get up and running. Things are not static in the computing world, they continually change and get better (usually). I wonder if the techs could make it an obligation, going forward, that new project managers do the hard yards regarding accurate finishing times, for the benefit of us badge hunters.  [Edit 1 times, last edit by Glen David Short at May 25, 2019 2:31:43 PM] |
||
|
|
KLiK
Master Cruncher Croatia Joined: Nov 13, 2006 Post Count: 3103 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Citizen422 said: I'm seeing a false dichotomy being presented here; that is, to either:
Why not a 3rd option: 3. Implement a system that more accurately and simply reflects progress based on work units/batches completed divided by total number of known work units/batches received thus far? At least the percent output will be 100% accurate based on current figures and doesn't extrapolate as far as projected time to project completion. (Estimated Completion Date can always be modeled by volunteers.) Implementing a 3rd option would mean both throwing out the work that has been done for the new system AND doing additional work on yet another new system that volunteers may or may not be satisfied with. That's a significant resource investment and would require taking one of the first two routes in the interim anyway. Personally, I fail to understand the desire to keep around a percentage based system that is admitted to be inherently inaccurate. A percentage based on simply # completed/# known WUs/batches would be 100% accurate as of the most recent stats run, at least until new work units are generated or new batches received from research teams. I'm a huge fan of going this route. The older percentage system (which techs have talked about) was more complex and included time and rate of completion. I wasn't a fan of the old calculation, personally. +1 & even with that, I could track the ECDs in my topic...so some of us would have interest to stay here... Otherwise, Einstein@home looks promising to me...or LHC@home. |
||
|
|
Mike.Gibson
Ace Cruncher England Joined: Aug 23, 2007 Post Count: 11799 Status: Recently Active Project Badges:
|
A simple question from the techs to the project each month as to how long units are likely to be available would be all that is necessary. It needn't be set in stone. Projects could be extended or could be shortened according to available funding.
Mike |
||
|
|
ca05065
Senior Cruncher Joined: Dec 4, 2007 Post Count: 325 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
In this thread the term 'known work units' has been used with the implication that it only uses the number of work units received by WCG. I consider that a better number to use would be 'expected work units'.
Before a sub-project is accepted for running on WCG, the researchers have to estimate the amount of computing work required by them. This is because it is not a good use of WCG technical resources to spend a few months preparing a new sub-project only for it to be completed in less than a couple of months. When the sub-project is implemented, the expected computing workload can be converted to 'expected number of work units'. The progress of the sub-project is then the ratio of completed / expected work units. All that is then needed is an additional question in the monthly telephone calls to ask if the expected computing workload or number of expected work units has changed. |
||
|
|
gb009761
Master Cruncher Scotland Joined: Apr 6, 2005 Post Count: 2955 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Maybe just a simple acknowledgement from the techs that they'll come back and revisit this topic, would be something (preferably sooner than later), as, has been indicated above, people are rather disgruntled - and when that happens, they leave. If nothing changes, then there'll be no one left TO crunch these new projects if/when they finally arrive.
----------------------------------------Going from memory, I think (hope) that there'll be enough time for me to get the following 5 yr Diamond badges in ZIKA, MCM & MIP. After that, and if I'm given no realistic clues as to how long a project will last, I'm 'outa here'. If ever, one (or more) of these new projects arrive, then I may just stick around to get a Gold badge for them - any higher, then it's just pure guesswork. The beauty of Grid computing - is that there are so many good alternatives out there, and if those provide better service to their community (i.e. their crunchers), then why stick around a place that doesn't acknowledge/recognise and appreciates them. Edit: I meant to say Zika (rather than SCC - which I've already got my 5 yr Diamond badge in).  [Edit 1 times, last edit by gb009761 at May 26, 2019 2:20:29 PM] |
||
|
|
Dave Evans
Cruncher Joined: Oct 26, 2010 Post Count: 4 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Citizen422 said: I'm seeing a false dichotomy being presented here; that is, to either:
Why not a 3rd option: 3. Implement a system that more accurately and simply reflects progress based on work units/batches completed divided by total number of known work units/batches received thus far? At least the percent output will be 100% accurate based on current figures and doesn't extrapolate as far as projected time to project completion. (Estimated Completion Date can always be modeled by volunteers.) Implementing a 3rd option would mean both throwing out the work that has been done for the new system AND doing additional work on yet another new system that volunteers may or may not be satisfied with. That's a significant resource investment and would require taking one of the first two routes in the interim anyway. Personally, I fail to understand the desire to keep around a percentage based system that is admitted to be inherently inaccurate. A percentage based on simply # completed/# known WUs/batches would be 100% accurate as of the most recent stats run, at least until new work units are generated or new batches received from research teams. I'm a huge fan of going this route. The older percentage system (which techs have talked about) was more complex and included time and rate of completion. I wasn't a fan of the old calculation, personally. +1 & even with that, I could track the ECDs in my topic...so some of us would have interest to stay here... Otherwise, Einstein@home looks promising to me...or LHC@home. +1 The new system seems to be one step forward and half a mile backwards. I liked having a rough estimate of each project as to a certain degree there was a sense of accomplishment, but this new system is rather discouraging. BTW my first post in almost 9 years with WCG. I think that this change have discouraged many others who do not post at all... |
||
|
|
danogian
Cruncher United Kingdom Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Post Count: 36 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I agree with the general sentiment expressed by most other posters on this thread.
----------------------------------------I should hit 10 years on ZIKA this weekend, and 10 years on MIP1 in mid January 2020. The only reason I've got to 2, 5 or 10 years on some of the projects that I have was due to prioritisation based on the estimates. 3 projects that I was aiming for a certain badge on, I fell short because either the project was cut shorter than expected, or the estimates were off (DDDT, SN2S & CSFW). However I understood the reasons why, and despite being annoyed at the time, fully understood that the estimated completion dates were estimates and not guarantees. Moving from "here is our best guess but no guarantees" to "we've got a rough idea but we're not telling you" seems to be a giant step backwards. I was already considering stopping my crunchers in January because of recent life changes that have affected my financial situation, and was happy with 10 year badges on all projects I could possibly reach that milestone on. If new projects had appeared before that time, I'd probably have continued if I thought there was a reasonable chance of making a milestone on them (not necessarily 10 years, I'd be happy with 2 or 5 on shorter running projects - I run 18 threads, so it takes me about 4 calendar weeks per CPU year). But having no indication at all of expected project duration will probably mean that I'll just hang up my participation in this project. Danogian
Core i9-10900K (Comet Lake) - 10C/20T
----------------------------------------Core i7-2600 (Sandy Bridge) - 4C/8T Ryzen 7 Pro 3700U (Zen+ Picasso) - 4C/8T Core i5-3320M (Ivy Bridge) - 2C/4T Core2 Duo E8400 (Wolfdale) - 2C/2T  [Edit 1 times, last edit by Danogian at May 28, 2019 1:21:15 PM] |
||
|
|
Glen David Short
Senior Cruncher Joined: Nov 6, 2008 Post Count: 184 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
How much damage to motivation and goodwill has this new progress bar system done after only two weeks? Some have dismissed those concerned as mere "badge hunters". But their contributions are comendable, as I have summarized below, and, in view of their considerable and meritorious contributions in the past, I hope their concerns are being listened to, not falling on deaf ears. Especially the ones who have said they have been members for a decade and this is their first post - doesn't that show how upsetting the new "progress bars" are? This thread is up to page 5 and over 2400 views in only 2 weeks. Surely there is a message just in that.
----------------------------------------The introduction of the previous progress bars was definitely a big step forward, now it feels like two steps back.. please, leave an old percentage via additional link for "Batch progress" or so.... for such geeks as I am - watching and celebrating every single percent for a current project - member since 2007, contributed over 15 yearsFor now, it seems my choice is to focus more resources on non-WCG projects.... At the very least, please post the "Monthly calls" there as a progress indicator on the research page so that one can find that information easily or post it in the news section. - member since 2007, contributed over 120 yearsIf it was put to a vote, i would prefer the old method. member since 2014, contributed over 370 yearsIf you re-implement this as a hidden feature, I'd sure appreciate it. - member since 2013, contributed 270 yearsWithout that kind of motivation and while missing badges due to lack of any information where to put more resources, well, helping science will not be the same as before. Sad, but true. member since 2007, contributed 50 yearsWe should be going back to the previous less inaccurate system immediately member since 2007, contributed over 145 yearsI’ve been here for more than a decade, and I definitely preferred the old progress bars. - member since 2008, contributed over 68 years.Can Not say I'm happy about this change. member since 2007, contributed more than 575 years I've got some thinking to do I guess. I really am now just a short way from pulling the plug on WCG because you just destroyed the fun. I may wait a while to see where this goes, but I am pretty sure that after 12 years, my days with WCG are numbered. This project can not continue without the goodwill of IBM, nor can it continue to provide useful contributions to the affected scientific community without the participation of the volunteers. Therefore, I think it would be in the best interest of all concerned to to provide something better than what currently exists on the Research page. - member since 2006, contributed over 275 years I'm living in a microhome while dedicating 64 desktop threads to World Community Grid. No, I don't have AC. Yes, it gets hot. In return, I want status reports. - member since 2013, contributed over 125 yearsThe current system is too 'course' and lacks the previous useful information This is like the gut-punch we got when grid.org suddenly closed up and all us crunchers found was locked doors and a sign that read "suckers". Concerning the new task bar --> It would be nice if the "Nearly Completed" stage was 6 months from completion rather than a few weeks from completion. The monthly reports have helped, but taking WU data away has simply angered the crunchers who understand what they're doing and want to play the competition games that are designed to suck us all in to do more work for the grid. Take it away and you take away the goodwill and the spirit of competition. The most likely outcome of that is that work done will go down, and the whole of humanity potentially suffers. - member since 2004, contributed 79 yearsLike I've said it before, if something don't change, I'm off to another project. The beauty of Grid computing - is that there are so many good alternatives out there, and if those provide better service to their community (i.e. their crunchers), then why stick around a place that doesn't acknowledge/recognise and appreciates them. - member since 2005, contributed over 39 yearsI liked having a rough estimate of each project as to a certain degree there was a sense of accomplishment, but this new system is rather discouraging. BTW my first post in almost 9 years with WCG. I think that this change have discouraged many others who do not post at all... - member who has been contributing since 2010But having no indication at all of expected project duration will probably mean that I'll just hang up my participation in this project. - member since 2007, contributed over 129 yearsJust by adding up these handful of comments, crunchers who have contributed well over 2000 years are unhappy. And they are only the ones who have bothered to complain! Now if you have ever studied marketing, you will know the often quoted rule: "96% of unhappy customers don’t complain, however 91% of those will simply leave and never come back". Like it or not, WCG has to be marketed to volunteers. You have to keep the crunchers happy, motivated, and feeling like their contributions and efforts are appreciated. Extrapolating the above figure of more than 2000 years by the % rule of thumb, you soon get an idea of just how damaging the new system is: by my back-of-the-envelope calculation, if more than 2000 years represents the 4% are motivated enough to complain, then crunchers with more than 50,000 years worth of contributions are also unhappy, but not saying anything, and are at risk of simply walking away in silence. Old crunchers might stay out of habit, but new recruits will look at this and say: "This looks boring, no way to plan my resource allocation, other BOINC projects look more fun". WCG contributor numbers will not grow, and humanity loses. I hope WCG is reconsidering reinstating the old system, or something better than the new system. I mean no disrespect to the WCG administrators. We appreciate they are busy with new climate change projects and maintaining the old system was time consuming and a guesstimate. But, as someone suggested, a monthly phone call to the project techs might be all that is needed, along with the written warning that they are rough estimates only! [Edit 4 times, last edit by Glen David Short at Jun 13, 2019 11:42:21 PM] |
||
|
|
|