Folding Forum

They're the ones doing the research, not you.

Not everyone who is a researcher goes and gets a PhD then publishes average, non-impactful articles for the sake of funding.

nchowlett wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 6:14 am

They're the ones doing the research, not you.

Not everyone who is a researcher goes and gets a PhD then publishes average, non-impactful articles for the sake of funding.

Is that what you think the folks at folding@home are doing?

*plonk*

Is that what you think the folks at folding@home are doing?

Yes. Of course I do. Are you as much an ass in real life?

This is exactly what I mean - poor user engagement. Part of the User eXperience. I'm sure we can improve it, they're too busy with research.

nchowlett wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 6:40 am This is exactly what I mean - poor user engagement. Part of the User eXperience. I'm sure we can improve it, they're too busy with research.

Do you think the forums should be restricted to only allow people to be upset, ignore the responses given by the volunteers or other users trying to help, then insult the researchers involved as well? Would that somehow create a positive user experience?


I wrote a lengthy response to your previous questions, but managed to zap it when it didn't submit properly and I refreshed a page. But overall in this case, the original poster is user older, slower hardware barely capable of folding any longer. Though I'm sure the researchers and others would enjoy a flaw free, highly efficient, cutting edge system that would handle any contribution available, there simply isn't funding the do but so much. Considering the throughput it's amazing they can keep it all running now without more major contributions.

Budget is always part of the picture. As technology moves forward, they have to do their best to stay up with the user base that can contribute the most to the ultimate goal, that being the research.

As for the user experience, this website as well as Discord are here to help and answer questions. With the exception of a few of the scientist/researchers popping in now and then for certain matters, all of the contribution are from volunteers and other users. So to some extent, we can create our own "user experience". I've found the forums helpful myself, and people are always here to assist with whatever issues someone has. But they aren't under any obligation to give anyone an answer to unreasonable requests that the entire system be changed just to suit what that user desires.

Do you think the forums should be restricted to only allow people to be upset, ignore the responses given by the volunteers or other users trying to help, then insult the researchers involved as well? Would that somehow create a positive user experience?

Sorry sarcasm doesn't translate very well in the digital world. I never meant to insult the researchers involved in FAH. I believe they are a special group, though.

But they aren't under any obligation to give anyone an answer to unreasonable requests that the entire system be changed just to suit what that user desires.

But I reckon more users would come if it's more approachable? The install process for example, might be critical if they are making their mind up to contribute or not. Any issues and they might disappear before FAH gets to see their 5000 core GPU that they bought for gaming.

So to some extent, we can create our own "user experience".

This could be an advantage, as we know what we feel and like thus are able to translate/design 'it' better than the researchers. 'It' being the community feel/etc.

I know the research is the most important bit, but it won't get done without the distributed hardware provided by us all. So there is a dependency on us (to my mind). So an engaged community is predicate to getting research done. IMO.

Considering the throughput it's amazing they can keep it all running now without more major contributions.

Do you mind elaborating on this a bit? I'm lost.

With the exception of a few of the scientist/researchers popping in now and then for certain matters, all of the contribution are from volunteers and other users.

Folding@home's computing power is more than the top 7 supercomputers combined. That is insane, all from volunteer-based hardware. This community might have more power than you think?

I'll break this down in a way that might help make sense of the "big picture".

The scientists and researchers want to make progress with research. Folding is a method for them to gain large donations of computing power to run simulations. They are concerned with research. Folding is simply a tool to allow them resources they might not have otherwise. Though they want to do research, part of that is learning whatever ins and outs they must know to create simulations in line with the current user base of folders, with the end hope that research is done in a fairly efficient manner, so they can get on with their primary jobs of being scientists and study the results, in hopes of promoting cures, better understandings, etc of all the various projects they work on.

Funds and other resources come in, and have to be used to their best advantage. At current F@H processes about 3 or so million work units per month, so 700-800,000 per week, all the way down to 12 to 13,000 average per hour currently. All of them have to be assigned, collected, distributed or made available to the researchers, etc. This takes hardware, power, and bandwidth. It also takes security, redundancy, available overhead for events such as COVID or other bursts in activity and such. Now you have scientists who have tech guys hopefully helping them run all this equipment, and done of it is simple, free, or 100% error free.

Volunteers such as us help with the computing power. Some help with software, beta testing of projects, running these forums, providing info or concerns to the researchers, etc. More is better, but it still comes at a cost. I don't disagree at all that if we could expand the user base twofold it would be great. Now at a demand of 25,000 work units an hour, where does that extra server hardware come from, or the people that maintain it, or how do the researchers keep up with the science side of how they break down or process the information? It's just never as easy as it seems without mass amounts of money to farm things out as it grows.


The COVID spike in participation proved several things. Many more will help when the need is more urgent.... in their minds. It's not as if people not surviving cancer daily is not urgent, it's just not COVID era scary to most people in the same way. But COVID showed that just as quickly as they show up, many quit contributing. The core base grew some, but not a great deal really. And the core base generally helps each other out, does what they can, and keep their hardware at work. And yet I know of none of them that are paid full time folders. Just like so much of the project, they are volunteers, many if not most still in their working years, who also have other priorities in life.

So at the end of the day most just make the best of it, do what they can, and make the best of it. They aren't going to stop because someone with older hardware can no longer make deadlines. If they remove it from being used, people are angry. If they don't remove it people are angry. These days anyone really wanting to contribute could stir up a bit of money, buy some used hardware, and keep contributing for years to come. But instead, many want to claim that the entire system, made of mostly of volunteers or a paid person taking on additional burdens to their primary jobs, is failing them.

The big picture doesn't exist to cater to individuals, it exists to advance science. And though the original poster brought up some valid points concerning how F@H is promoted, some needed updates and such.... there just aren't loads of people hanging around with nothing to do other than update the website info.

BobWilliams757 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:38 am I'll break this down in a way that might help make sense of the "big picture".

Really appreciate this in-depth summary, Bob. Thanks heaps.

BobWilliams757 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:38 am If they remove it from being used, people are angry. If they don't remove it people are angry.

This is exactly why I suggested FLEXIBILITY (that FAH can use the help of both advanced and casual donors). But if the FAH people think it is not an optimum or effective strategy to be flexible (and prefer to seek help exclusively from a limited group of advanced and competitive donors), I have no objection to that. I just thought flexibility can improve FAH's efficacy. But if it has been already tested and not approved, well OK.

And no, I am not at all angry.



On a side note, I hope that feature (that unfinished WUs can be used by the next donors) will automatically introduce a lot of flexibility to the equation.

These days anyone really wanting to contribute could stir up a bit of money, buy some used hardware, and keep contributing for years to come. But instead, many want to claim that the entire system, made of mostly of volunteers or a paid person taking on additional burdens to their primary jobs, is failing them.

That's OK, but in that case, maybe the website should clearly say this (i.e., what you are suggesting above) on its homepage, instead of claiming that anyone with any computer can contribute to the project (especially) using their unused computer power.


Is it too much to ask for clarity?

And I am not angry. I am just defending my arguments in a neutral and friendly tone.

BobWilliams757 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:38 amAnd though the original poster brought up some valid points concerning how F@H is promoted, some needed updates and such.....

Thanks for reading.

...there just aren't loads of people hanging around with nothing to do other than update the website info

You mean revising a small paragraph on a webpage needs "loads of people hanging around with nothing to do other than update the website info"?!

To the best of my knowledge, revising a small text within a website is extremely easy. Even a single person can do it in 10 minutes. It really does not need such a huge human workforce.

Secondly, FAH's homepage is their very face. So perhaps correcting its inaccuracies should be given a relatively higher priority, even if hypothetically it needed such loads of people.

Secondly, FAH's homepage is their very face. So perhaps correcting its inaccuracies should be given a relatively higher priority, even if hypothetically it needed such loads of people.

I agree. The website is their very public 'touchpoint' with potential donators. If they are going to spend any effort with marketing, it should be here IMO.

Plus, the new client software to control your folding is developed in Vue.js, which I suspect would be a enticing learning task if they were to redevelop the website using this JavaScript framework (hypothetically), at least for novice web developers wanted for some experience in modern development using JS.