So if they know the WU was received, why is it so hard to look up the PRCG and place credit where it is due? Shouldn't it be a simple database query?
We had one team member (45104) receive 51000 points on 11/20, who also happens to be a new member, but showing a first record date of 11/15. His highest PPD other than that is 7017. That's certainly an anomaly if nothing else. How odd is it that his 51000 point spike occurred just as PG was supposed to be recovering data from the stats server after the 11/11-11/12 glitch?
Isn't using the passkey ID supposed to help avoid errors in points and WU allocation? I use a passkey. It didn't help me in any way that I know of.
Yeah, it's altruistic to say the points don't matter, and that it's all about the science. If points don't matter, then why bother with them at all?
From here on, you can dismiss me as a crackpot, paranoiac or just stupid if you wish. But I can't help speculating that there may be some benefiting from the work of others. If it's plainly arbitrary, then fine, I can live with that. But take the following into consideration before you flame me.
Teams are sponsoring contests with prizes being awarded on the basis of points. One in particular, folding@evga, number 5 in team standings with ~1000 active users, has an ongoing promotion,
giving out credits towards EVGA product purchases and swag. Search on the phrase "folding@home contest" and see how many results you get. Google yielded about 536,000 unfiltered results today. AMD, PNY, EVGA, Nvidia and bunches of others, including web sites that sponsor teams, run contests. There could be legal ramifications if there isn't some greater effort made on the part of PG to comply with their own system. People are dangling more than "points" in front of possible donors in order to get them to participate.
Maybe PG says the re-crediting is completed, but that doesn't jibe with donor records, mine included. Transparency on the part of PG surely would not hurt in this instance. The lack of communication and assertions contrary to donor records of submissions could call into question the competency and/or integrity of those responsible for stats record keeping. Once again, I hope I'm wrong about this and it's just a simple glitch.
But some people cheat just because they can. Certain teams have brought in possible donors whose principle interest may be other than contributing to science, fragging their online opponents being their motivation instead. For some, a glitch may present an opportunity. And what if the stats server was hacked, and that's what caused the glitch?
Microsoft's Xbox Live service just kicked off over 1,000,000 Xboxes for illegal modifications, a probable indication of enhancements made solely for the purpose of cheating.
But then one could also question if our efforts on 11/11 and 11/12 actually made any difference at all. What if entire WUs were actually lost, and that's really why there can be no re-crediting? If so, PG should just say that's what happened. But that comes back to competency, doesn't it?
I'm wondering if those aforementioned legal ramifications are what's keeping the information from flowing freely. Keeping one's mouth shut is the first, surest and easiest method of damage control.
Teams have folding contests all the time. For example, Ars Technica participates in more than 2 dozen DC projects, and they probably have at least one contest running each month. Some contests are to win prizes, others are simply for bragging rights. And sometimes the prizes are even donated by corporate sponsors. It's paid advertising, not bribes or subversion.