Folding Forum

Adak wrote:

texinga wrote:We can talk all day and forever about what "we think" should happen. But, until there is solid dialog with PG about the actual Bigadv changes, we're basically arguing point/counterpoint amongst ourselves. That may be therapeutic in a way, but it would be much more useful to actually have these discussions with the people that are in control of the changes (PG). I'd like to see PG actively engage us as Bigadv Folders, right here and now. If we can be here just about every day, I think at least one of them could "look-in" and offer some sort of feedback/direction to the conversation. That is what is needed most.

Consider it a conversation, with someone who prefers to just listen at the moment. There are lots of ideas being brought up, and concerns as well. Until they have a clear vision of what they want to say and do, it's best for them to listen and wait for awhile. They can invite conversation with us, when things have calmed down further, and they've had more time to reflect on it.

That tactic does not work for me and (from what I can tell) lots of other Bigadv Folders over time. Better to direct the "conversation" with facts than read all this "interpretation". Having managed people for about 30-years, the "remain silent" tactic only works to a point (and has it's place). But, most people would rather just know the facts, talk about it and get on with what has to be done. Remaining silent at this point breeds a lot of mis-facts, "donor interpretation", argument and dissatisfaction from same. PG needs to learn that they can speak to us about these things without risking something bad happening. If we know the facts, more of the background, etc, we would be much better at helping them through this (if that is what they would like).

They prefer to remain focused on their own work, which they have plenty of. That's why they will be hiring someone to handle donor communications/affairs, for them.

They will enter the conversation when things have calmed down, and they know what they want to say to the obvious questions they will receive from the donors. I would want to do the same in their place, unless I felt like an exceptionally fast swimmer that day,

Adak wrote:They prefer to remain focused on their own work, which they have plenty of. That's why they will be hiring someone to handle donor communications/affairs, for them.

They will enter the conversation when things have calmed down, and they know what they want to say to the obvious questions they will receive from the donors. I would want to do the same in their place, unless I felt like an exceptionally fast swimmer that day,

Please, don't speak for what PG is thinking or what they are doing...we have entirely too much of that going on and it really needs to stop. You are a donor just like me and have no more knowledge of what/why they do what they do than I do. It's OK to speak for yourself, but when you start telling me what PG is thinking/doing, I hafta to draw the line and say you are simply guessing without actual knowledge. That is why I have mostly directed my thoughts to PG so that I can actually know the facts (not have someone else answer with interpretations). Give PG the credit/opportunity to have their own minds about this topic which can be very different from what you personally think.

well, good point, but no response since your post on the 20th indicates that PG is not interested in a direct dialog(prompt anyway).
Just an observation, not speaking for PG.

Adak wrote:

Orion wrote: I would like to see PG taking with tear and Grandpa_01. Both are level headed, run BA's and have contributed allot to F@H.

I agree 101% about their contribution - both are magnificent donors to FAH. Right now, both are also clearly angered by this latest BA announcement, however. Until things calm down, I don't see any advantage for Pande Group or the moderators, if they were to join into this thread. I would guess that they would rather go swimming with Great White Sharks, than post here.

I am not upset by the content of the announcement I expected it, I just did not know when. I am upset by the way it was done though and by the way people are normally treated here at the FF with the closing / editing and threatening of donors. if you do not see things the way thye FF staff does. I also believ they have a right to feel the way they do fellings are fine just some of the actions are not. (it is pretty bad when donors have to add a disclamer to there post) I do commend the FF staff on this particular thread they have exercised some restraint from the norm. (Thank You)

Kassons original announcement said they were going to adjust bigadv which is fine they announced months ago that they would be adjusting from time to time. What is not good is they gave no road map of the changes or reviews. (Bad Mistake) we as donors need to know how long our investment expected life cycle may be. Without this people can and will feel used by PG which is really bad for PR

Second mistake was mentioning smp without anything going along with it. The statement basically said those of you at the bottom end we are going to force you to run your machines on smp for 1/3 of what we are paying you now, (1/3 is a legitimate number I have received 1/3 my normal ppd running smp for the last 24hrs on my bigadv rigs). Which if they really do not need the rigs running there it is what it is. If smp is end of life or of very little importance just say so. (The Points already point in that direction by the way)

I am not convinced there is any larger backlog of smp than there is of anything else, (It is all relevant to the numbers of machines running what WU type) PG has not said there is a need for rigs to switch over from bigadv to smp at this time and the bigadv change was expected (Just no time line). I have a feeling this is just the norm, but once again a road map would have helped PR here.

Many donors said the last time that this was going to happen because smp was undervalued, and the rigs were going to be shut down, it will continue to happen if the value is not there to run them. We are seeing mixed signals here smp = low value = EOL for smp. but yet they are the most common new WU's being released. (Frankly this seems dumb and is confusing to me) There is a simple solution if one is needed and I know PG is not stupid.

I am a very strong supporter of F@H and PG I believe in the program and Vj and crew, I do not however believe in the lack of support of or the bad treatment of donors in any way shape or form which is what happens here quite often and does reflect upon PG.

Much of this could have been avoided with a simple road map I do not care if it is a once a year re evaluation period or a quarterly it is something that is needed, it should include when it is going to happen and what the intent is. (Dates need to be given for reevaluation)

I believe the announcement by Vj of a PR person is a good thing hopefully they will cover all aspects of the project. I whole heartedly support the science aspect of things and know that PG will guide the work flow in a direction they believe it needs to go through the points system, that is what it was set up for and frankly less point's for smp means less need for it to the average person. I firmly believe allot of this is chaos is happening because of donors reading between the lines and bad PR.

Hopefully this will be fixed soon.

mdk777 wrote:well, good point, but no response since your post on the 20th indicates that PG is not interested in a direct dialog(prompt anyway).
Just an observation, not speaking for PG.

Your response is what I'm talking about. Just because we have not heard back from Dr. Pande or anyone else at PG since 12/20, do we just assume they "are not interested"? Maybe they are not even at work and took an extended holiday (as I have for 2 weeks). Maybe they are reading this thread and have some other reason for not engaging this conversation. All I'm saying is let's stop assuming that we know why and wait to see what their response actually is on this topic.

To the comments that there is too much emotion and "things need to calm down", that does not apply to all of us here. I'm calm and would be ready to hear the facts (even if I don't like the end result). For me, I'd rather clearly know whether to continue Bigadv Folding as I used to do, or do something else. I can take my Servers to a new place and still get good use from them. I'd just like to have some more interaction with people that do know so that I can deal with the decisions (now and in the future). Heck, I think that is mostly what a lot of Bigadv Folders want...just give us the guidance. We already have made the investments in what we own, we just need to hear "from the horses mouth". If the "horse" in fact does not want to speak with us, I'll take that as an answer, but would prefer not to. That is not too much to ask and it doesn't have to be assumed as being emotionally charged.

well, I've seen other threads die and go unanswered for years...
Macaholic listed a few of them.
I even pointed out some very cogent suggestions from a recent one...If you notice, there was no response in that thread from PG and the thread died.

I agree with your general thoughts...it just has not happened in recent memory.
You can characterize this observation any way you want.

My only emotion is that another opportunity to improve rather than squander "good faith" is being missed.

Admitting that there was a problem was a good first step. However, that alone is not sufficient.

I'm actually right there with ya mdk and have had your same perspective for years. I had just a glimpse of hope (from the way Dr. Pande engaged us the other day) that maybe, just maybe, they were "opening the kimono" and would let us have some dialogue. I was hoping that just maybe, they weren't going to be too afraid to work through this with us (the Bigadv Folders). I mean, heck we are a pretty small group and from what I can tell want to help PG. I mean that sincerely...if they were to open up to us, include us in more of why they hafta do these things, maybe we could help. I'd be willing to point a 4P at SMP if they said they needed it from me because I do want to help them (more than grab points).

So all that to say, you and I share the same desires for this topic. If we could be allowed to understand more about PG's challenges (from them) it would help us navigate these transitions better. I'm reminded of all the years dealing with large customers. There were plenty of times that I either had to deliver bad news or hear it from them. Avoiding that conversation or hoping it would right itself on it's own would be a recipe for disaster. I hope that PG doesn't follow that line of thinking because the risk to donor relations (in this niche group of enthusiasts) is only made worse if there is no real engagement of the subject.

Take care...

I am going on 50 smp WUs returned in the last few days. So how are things going?
Is there a difference that can be seen at all?
I know of several people have switched over and added cpu folding on their GPU rigs.

There have been some really good posts. Too bad they are not numbered so I could say post 233 had some good points in it.
I d o not like quoting people. It dose not give them a chance to fix their spelling mistakes.

Tim, I know you were going to post you idea on a solution after you slept on it.
Did you post it? I seem to have missed it.

Congrats on your SMP folding Bill.

This is the day that will decide several last spots still open for the NFL playoffs. Time for me to go watch one.

Grandpa, I hope PG reads your post, above. You have stated many concerns, very well.

@texinga: I'm sure the most benign speculation on my part, will irk you.

Throwing another rock into the pool: How about changing the points structure to reflect your contribution at the current moment, not over all time,and progressively devalue points earned the older they are, linearly or exponentially. It kind of formalizes what happens now anyway with points/WA inflation. This could be a PPD rate over some time period. Any kind of major points awarding change algorithm could get implemented without such radical devices as a score zeroing and the pain would quickly fade away. The number of WU's completed could still represent the total contribution to science and the current point rate could still stoke our egos.

It also might be a good idea to rank us separately in the BA, SMP and GPU divisions. If the not-so-beefy rig gets dropped from the BA league it could still rock the SMP league.

Maybe PG could outsource the points management problem to the math, CS or business departments as a research project. That we we could be helping research and be the object of research at the same time.

OK Wheeler! You ARE a rock thrower. < LOL >

Your "current moment" points sounds like Recent Average Credit (RAC), in BOINC projects. I take it this would extend over a longer period than our current "24 hour Average" seven day period?

My reservations about someone else doing our points system is that they might create a good system, that antagonizes and alienates a lot of folders, although it might mathematically be OK. I'm not sure a non-folder would be able to easily grasp the human (psychological) side of folding, and clearly, that is important.

Bill1024 wrote:Tim, I know you were going to post you idea on a solution after you slept on it.
Did you post it? I seem to have missed it.

I said "write it up" not that I would post it here. You did not miss it.

There I go reading between the lines again. Silly me.