Folding Forum

The initial ideas often seem unimportant. But analyzed can be revolutionary. Cristobal Colon fought for his idea of a round world. He fought for his idea and then is known history.

What I propose is revolutionary in F@h. Ranking by productivity vs. ranking by accumulation.

Comparison with baseball statistics is good. Each season a team has to show their level of performance. The achievements of the past statistics, serve as important reference. But these achievements of the past must give victories today. If it is not the case the team down.
This requires all the teams, large and small, to improve constantly. The small team that exceeds much, amounts. And many small reach the world series. The famous team with historic tradition, which is not working today, descends.

What I propose is the same. RANKIN OFFICIAL F@h, based on production of last 30 days, including historical production as important reference.

Each team level will have immediate challenges to overcome, and to defend. Who is the logical winner, F@h research.

Consider the following. A Director of computation suggested that the Board of Directors of the Corporation. That it is integrated to F@h. It will have a 20 million points daily production. This Prestige is going to be used in advertising.

The President asked, as time will be in a respectable place in the ranking?

Two possible answers:
1.Ranking by accumulation: POSSIBLY THREE YEAR.
2.Ranking by productivity 30 days: ONE MONTH.

-Do you notice any difference?
-Do it believes that the two possible answers have influence in the decision?
-How would your position as a member of the Board of Directors, with two possible answers?
-At the level of any team that wants to grow, it is the same.

It would be interesting to read analytical responses on the effect of this proposal.
Jorge Arturo Barrientos Valerio.

While there is some merit to your thinking it would be better to go along the direction of multiple competitions,
It wouldn't be a huge task for those already compiling stats pages to filter them on a "by the month" table,
then those wishing to compete within a team or inter team on a "current productivity" basis could use that
results table,
Scrapping the historical production in favour of only current productivity may well lose more donors than it gains,
Take a long term donor who through years of dedication to the science is in say the top 500 donors and in the top 10
of his team, how would he feel when "points racers" swap to his team for a while, lead the stats for a few months and
then move on, only to be replaced by someone similar ?
I could move all my hardware to any number of teams and instantly become #1 in monthly stats, and if someone passes
that then just move and be #1 somewhere else,
how would that affect the motivation of long term donors and team members ?
As well as the positives like Columbus, there are also lots of events in History that were seen as a good idea with the
best of intentions, that were a disaster...

Again, I don't necessarily disagree.

However, just to give you perspective; I will play devil's advocate for a minute.

One of the major hurdles of the projects is its very longevity. Donor fatigue is a real problem.
We live in a age of 3 day news cycles and blinding internet speed. The very nature of computer enthusiasts hardware conditions users to expect a revolution if not a doubling of results every 18 months.
The amount of information I can access from my phone alone seems infinite compared to just 2 years ago.

Against this background, holding donor interest for 10 years is a real challenge.
As a Statistician, I'm sure you can appreciate some of the information that can be gleaned from just a few examples.

Active 439172 Total 6396962 = DONOR RETENTION RATE of 6.87 %

My stats only from my last team activity 1643889 or a project rank of 11.182

This was from on and off for a couple of years. Consequently 11182/6396962 = in the top 2 tenths of a percent of all folders in the project.

What do these statistics point out? That my accumulated points are extremely noteworthy or laudable?

No, they point out that over 99% of donors get bored and don't stay with the project for a significant time (years, not months)

Consequently, while it is important to maintain an emphasis on current participation, it is equally important to encourage project retention.

The total number of contributors is exaggerated. Each time you uninstall and reinstall, you get a new ID, and that counts towards the total users. Upgrades of the client, upgrades of computers, etc., all count as 1 more towards the total. I've probably contributed 100s of those total users counted over the years, and I'm just one small contributor.

So while I have to discredit the actual percentage of retention given by mdk777, I do agree with the concepts stated by him. Long term retention is a challenge, to any long term project.

And in my opinion, if the stats were changed to only show recent points, that would hurt long term retention of donors, especially with the 439,172 active donors, as this is no small change to suggest. I want to feel that my contributions to the project over the last 8+ years will continue to be valued. The turtle wins the race, not the rabbit.

@ Jorge1950 - But a change should be analyzed, as you suggest. One might consider contacting Jason at EOC Stats, or Kakao, and ask them if they have web-analytics (page view counts) for his stats pages. Ask them how frequently people resort the users and team lists by recent contributions instead of by total contributions. That would help give you more data on how well this change might be received by the current user base.

I was looking at the statistics of Extremeoverclockin, and other. The focus of the next link is good, rather removes the random fluctuations:

http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... p?s=&srt=6

For me, as an administrator of a Team, would be the Rankin would use. The improvement that I suggest to Extremeoverclockin, to USE A MOBILE WEEK. WEEK NO NATURAL.

Notice even on the first page, there are teams, brown and green.
The first, remain as first. There are no changes in them. But shortly after the changes are important.

http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... p?s=&srt=6

Today 2011Jul 31 07:00, I'm seeing statistics

This is the problem

-------------------------------------- Team Rankings Top 100
Statistics accumulation.................15 Pande Lab
Statistics production....................99 Pande Lab

Jorge1950 wrote:The formation of new equipment is misleading. I've seen him in many forums in different parts of the world. Founded 10 teams that will compete for a month. Declares the winners. And teams die. This is a way. Involved, have not even clear the objectives of the project. They continue to be born and dying. I do not speak of such equipment.

I refer to teams with much more permanence. Created with real awareness of FA. That, after reasonable can last for years. So finally we come to something else. As it was the case with Genome-Folding.

Also I refer to a format of statistics, which is hidden. And it can be found after 5 or 6 teams.

I refer to the institutional statistics of FA. I am aware that inertia is difficult to break. Especially when you are defending ACQUIRED RIGHTS.

I ask that they consider a different approach. CURRENT PRODUCTIVITY. It is not to defend the family inheritance. It's show, day to day who is the best. That more works.

To overcome productivity, not descend to move forward. It is a much more demanding approach to computers. But the goal is achieved, more production for FA. This would help not only in front, also in the media and smaller. Always have a rival, a passage to attack him. And at the same time defend is behind. Each level.

Many of us go off of PPD rather than overall pts as to who is the bigger contributor... however wu count and total points to play into that.

The cause and effect of your approach would be to ignore the older teams longstanding contributions...
Don't expect Stanford to change... and if they do don't expect it to make sense or end in your favor... unless you have a few million to donate.

IF your team keeps building... it will pass older teams... it won't take you 10 years... the system will slowly inflate... though stanford would be wise if they let an economist change the point system rather than a socialist... but that might make sense

The measurement of productivity is an idea born as a modern approach to stimulate production and measuring actual shares of the contributors to a process. It has become part of all aspects of modern life.

Measurement by accumulation occurs in financial means where what matters is to measure the accumulation of wealth during decades or centuries.

In the latter case it would have to start by defining when here he began to be measured. Participation in the research of a brilliant and obsessive mind as shots Thomas Edison, her count or not. We have the endless nights worked after leaving his staff? And he ended up sleeping a few hours in a bunk in the lab?

Gentlemen, look back is nice. About especially when one is uploaded; on the shoulders of giants. But investigations that are underway now, need the effort now.

The buildup to the historical analysis is correct. There are fond of it. Equipment founded by a month, not reach or 400 thousand points in that month.

My suggestion to measure in terms of a mobile month is not to include these volatile teams. The aim of the proposal is professional. Many cyclical movements occur in the course of a month. Also random. Then a month can be an amount of time, relatively solid for the measurement of productivity. In any case, if they wish to adopt a mobile week production, the approach is superior to the cumulative.

(Stastistics Tue Aug 2 20:00:03 UTC 2011)

However it turns out to be that great, always are. The last of the Top 100 of Folding@home (accumulative) is ASUS REPUBLIC OF GAMERS (172.951309 pts) 1,579,152 weekly, the same statistics for " http://kakaostats.com/index.php?col=10 " for the same date and time.


And turns out to be in the weekly production statistics; in the top 100 for productivity, new members are:

And turns out to be in the weekly production statistics
" http://kakaostats.com/index.php?col=8 "
In the top 100 for productivity, new members are:

NEW TEAMS THAT AMOUNT TO THE TOP 100 FOR PRODUCTIVITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rankin/Name__________________Producti._____Pts
_____________________________weekly_______ Acum.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29/BYU Provo HBLL_____________7,784,112___ 95,351
34/Megware___________________6,398,976___ 28,105
49/Team Jiggmin______________ 4,661,096 __116,327
50/Team DF.LTH.SE____________ 4,435,316___ 54,105
52/bwm_______________________4,186,064 __ 140,601
63/Folding Luso Brasileiro________3,013,264 __ 166,598
68/The Folding Wolves__________2,323,648 __ 146,301
71/Hyperlight__________________2,120,912 __ 142,656
73/futuremark.com_____________1,907,584 __ 149,463
75/Leppert Business Systems_____1,874,648 __ 101,216
76/colby mules_________________1,837,728 __ 148,072
80/Intel_______________________1,738,848 __ 152,087
82/Hopkins Geeks______________1,695,040 ___ 13,430
87/OSM_______________________1,550,384 ____ 4,589
89/pretaktovanie.sk____________1,540,344 __ 128,406
91/PEER1 HOSTING_____________1,525,128 ___ 79,156
94/Team 60148 - about us: YouTube search *60148 GPU*
_____________________________1,402,144__ 126,024
95/MagicVillage Folding Team____1,401,920 __ 138,698
97/Clover Park Tech CNISS______1,394,270 ___ 29,914
99/GruntvillE.CoM_____________1,372,000 __ 144,271
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL (20 Team)_____________54.163.426
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OUT TEAMS THAT ARE DESCENDED FROM THE TOP 100 FOR PRODUCTIVITY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rankin/Name________________ Producti____Pts
___________________________ weekly_____Acum
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
102/Overclockers Club________ 1,342,240__ 391,676
104/DevFolding_____________ 1,334,336 __ 211,923
105/Slickdeals______________ 1,320,896 __ 186,524
107/Team Lithuania_________ 1,268,336 __232,877
109/Free Republic Folders - A Tribute to Ronald Reagan
__________________________ 1,243,360__ 191,980
113/ClubLexus______________ 1,165,376 __ 270,473
115/Gentoo Linux Users Everywhere
___________________________1,078,704__ 236,803
119/2ch@PS3_______________1,040,128 __ 322,536
139/HKEPC__________________819,360 __ 179,783
152/Portugal@Folding_________759,392__ 278,003
170/MSI HQ Red Rockets______664,640 __ 204,003
176/The Longevity Meme______640,560 __ 205,922
181/Estonia_________________610,464__ 178,563
182/Team Hack-a-Day________602,528 __ 205,281
183/Hunt-Dis_______________592,352 __ 403,602
194/SpeedGuide.net_________541,680__ 191,464
216/Lost Cause_____________445,056 __ 382,522
262/PlayStation.com Forums__314,976 __ 224,678
289/ADSLgr - Greek aDSL Us__ 270,192__ 187,215
514/awachs_________________104,800 __ 342,192
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL (20 Team)___________ 16.159.376
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Major changes occur really team 150 onwards. Top 150 change very little.

But this change will encourage teams to strive. Search for new resources. New recruits, etc. The team that did not work, desenderá. The team to make every effort will be.

BUT IS NOT THIS WHAT WE ARE ACCUSTOMED, AND SEE IT AS NATURAL, IN EVERYDAY LIFE.

Thank you for the interventions. In favour or against. I hope that you dare to say. Don't be afraid of its reasoned opinion.

Remenber:
[b]Production statistics:[/b] http://kakaostats.com/index.php?col=8
[b]Accumulative statist:[/b] http://kakaostats.com/index.php?col=10

Jorge Barrientos

Measurement of productivity... eh... http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... p?s=&srt=3

PPD (points per day)

without long term records you cannot have an average... Stanford does not need to change their record keeping... perhaps startups need to change what they are looking at...

However well argued, all your posts so far are asking for team and individual rankings to be sorted by current production, correct ?,
reinforcing that with more posts, no matter how well thought out isn't going to get far without support and donor opinion,
so my suggestion would be to open a poll with the current leaderboard method, and your alternatives and have a look at the results,
if your idea's are supported then follow it through, if the majority of votes are to stay the same then frankly, you are wasting your time.
I'm not opposed to such changes, indeed with a "current production" table I'd leap up 100 places or so, but having switched teams a while back
and leaving close to 50 million points behind that's not why I'm here, points are recognition of work done, current or historical, and while a
current production table might see me move up the ladder, I would not support anything that basically "throws out" points and Wu's scored
in my previous team.

While a poll and "majority rule" sounds like a good idea, I think you'd be wasting your time. First, The number of participants who would vote would be an infinitesimal fraction of those who fold so no matter which way the so-called vote went, it wouldn't be a valid indication of what the folding public wants.

Second, the Pande Group provides stats in a downloadable form explicitly for the 3rd party stats to use, and the owners of those sites do an excellent job of organizing that data into a variety of useful formats. The ranking being discussed is already available from those 3rd party sites. Donors are already free to choose which method appeals to them. I would encourage EVERYONE to be proud of their FAH accomplishments. If I claim to be the best by historic ranking and you claim to be best by weekly production, there's really no conflict. Both are valid statements and we can both be proud of our accomplishments.

Third, somebody suggested comparing hit-counts on the 3rd party websites. That's certainly a better method of measurement than just counting votes of those who happen to visit foldingforum.org this month.

Fourth, the Pande Group is going to ask themselves what it will cost to reorganize the official stats pages and what benefit it will provide in terms of how it will change the number of active Donors. Because the data is already available at popular 3rd party sites, the benefit will be zero so until there is an OVERWHELMING need to change what appears on the stanford.org pages, the cost is going to be too high. They already have a considerable backlog of good ideas which will increase the number of active donors.

Fifth, very few of the Donors are economists. While economic theory may say method B is better a better way to measure productivity than method A, they're unlikely to be convinced by a long discussion of economic theory. They'll continue to use whichever stats site that they prefer.

I think this discussion has run its course and we should let the topic fade into the list of inactive topics. What has been said is interesting but I'm afraid it's not going to lead to any permanent changes in the official stance at Folding@home, no matter how fervently it is discussed.

Which all goes back to the first response to the OP.

while short and to the point, it was accurate.

Your best bet is to start your own stats web page.

You can encourage your team, or all teams that you can influence to follow your ranking system.

You are not going to build critical mass posting on this thread.

ESTADÍSTICAS DEL EQUIPO: Costa Rica - Pura Vida - Folding

1) INTEGRANTES http://kakaostats.com/subteam.php?col=11&t=208154

2) GENERALES: http://kakaostats.com/tp.php?t=208154

3) RANKIN PRODUCTIVIDAD SEMANAL: http://kakaostats.com/?col=8&offset=300
____En Rankin Productividad estamos en lugar 315-330

I had to edit the parameters in the productivity statistics, because we have advanced about 30 places in weekly productivity.
It is a current production growth approach. You think you, dear reader; opine and argue for or against my thesis, there is no censorship.

This is an approach that favours the current productivity.
Young people, who are those who have the best equipment for games; the Warrior approach is what interests them and keeps them.

Not the accumulation of history