Folding Forum

Viper97 wrote:It's not the thank you's... it's the way they do it... as if it is secondary to their needs in my mind.

So you were thanked, you admit, but it the STYLE of the thank you, that wasn't good enough for you. Oh dear! What a calamity! Call out the National Guard - Viper97 has not been thanked in the manner with which he has become accustomed. It's a tragedy!

Viper97 wrote: I don't require thank you's.

Could have fooled us!

Viper97 wrote: I do require stability and that is something we do not have here. I do require a road map and that is something not presented now or in the past. I do require that this be explained to donors in a matter that we donors can understand and if need be in lay terms. I see no explanation.

Reading comprehension is a must!

Viper97 wrote:I do see a plan and that plan has no explanation.

No explanation that you LIKE, you mean.

Viper97 wrote:I see neither offered from PG a plan or a rationale for that plan.

Well, we could work on that problem. Or we could do nothing and complain and moan and groan for yet another week. It's up to us, what we choose to do.

The best analogy is a baseball one. You have a baseball club, and it has too many relief pitchers, and not enough starting pitchers. So you leave the best relief pitchers where they are, and put the rest into the starting rotation.

@sbinh: No. I'm not affiliated with PG in any way. In fact, I'm critical of the point system. But my critical view of the points system doesn't extend to all these vitriolic posts in this thread. Seems more like a FAH bashing conference, than a forum thread.

k1wi wrote:It's academia, wheels always move slower than everyone desires.

but the academics are dealing with non academic donors in the non academic world.

Who needs to be made happier...the academics asking people to be donors or the people willing to donate to the academics research?

No, of course not. You have not backed up any of your arguments. You make demands that are unjustified. You have posted dozens of negative posts in this thread. I can't find anything positive in your posts.

You mistake your audience. You don't need to argue or convince me of anything(I understand this backwards and forwards and can cite most of it from memory)

What you need to convince is the donors affected by the announcement.

I doubt your "take your ball home if you don't like the game" advice is winning over those on the fence.
"take your medicine like a man." is probably not winning over the cerebral crowd either.

But it is not personal, not you and I and others engaging in a diversion of internet discussion.

It is if PG can communicate with donors effectively?

I will leave you to continue your banter.

hopefully, PG and the donors will achieve better results.
edit:
of course, that will depend on if PG can explain their rationale.

Grandpa_01 wrote:

k1wi wrote:It's academia, wheels always move slower than everyone desires.

They shouldn't but they do

Yeah, like I indicated earlier in this thread, progress tends to get held up by/depend on a multitude of different decisions, 'stakeholders' and forms/paperwork for what seems like eons, and then jump ahead very quickly. Sometimes in a completely different direction than expected. For what it's worth, I have only noticed an increase in procedures and paperwork and forms required .

There is always a desire for things to move quicker (or even just more fluidly?). But in some cases it is important that it doesn't move too fast, because each decision should be robust and well considered (although even robust and well considered decisions can benefit from hindsight). At least that's usually the rational given to us when a new procedure form is created that we have to comply with! The changes in direction are more or less par for the course when you're forging new territory. I think businesses can certainly be more 'nimble' but they are in a completely different sphere to academia.

orion wrote:

k1wi wrote:It's academia, wheels always move slower than everyone desires.

but the academics are dealing with non academic donors in the non academic world.

Who needs to be made happier...the academics asking people to be donors or the people willing to donate to the academics research?

I don't even think it's that simple or black and white. They probably wish it was. From my perspective, they're trying to interact with heterogeneous 'non academic donors', while having to operate within the constraints/limitations of an academic world, and in the process advance the science as best as possible. There are likely a host of additional factors they have to balance, some of which they are probably unable to speak out about. It's going to cause tension and constrain.

I'm not trying to be an apologist, I've said earlier in this thread that we can, and perhaps should, always expect better. I guess that by having a foot in both the academic world and the donor world, I have some sympathy for what they are trying to achieve, given the constraints they have. I appreciate my perspective is going to differ from yours and others in this forum/donor community. Even if fundamentally we're aiming for the same or at least similar outcome.

Don't you guys feel like you are talking to the wall?
This is like politics and religion, you are not going to convince the other person to come to your point of view.
All I see now is blah blah blah blah.
oh yeah well blah blah blah to you too.

Why not turn off your computer, go get a cold tasty beverage of your choice, go out side take a breath of crisp cold arctic air and chill?
Will you please give PG a chance to give a good clear concise answer.

Adak wrote:
Do you work with other organizations that involve you in their decision making process? Do you know the decision making process for any other BOINC project?

Because I have crunched for several different BOINC projects, and NONE (ZERO) of them have ever involved their donors, in their decision-making process. That experience goes all the way back to crunching for United Devices, before FAH was created.

So I believe you are asking for something you know you can't get. Why are you doing that?

Adak your wrong on that. WCG sent out a poll asking how they could make it better for donors and what they mite need to change ,They email out xmass cards saying thanks. If I do not crunch for them for a month or so they ask where I am.In other words they at least make it look like they care. PG could give a flying or that is the way it seems.
I can go to there home page and there are links to every project they do webcast every now and then on the projects. Go to folding at homes index page what you get join now fold even well you sleep. There is very little info on what folding even is or what your going to fold.
I still have not made up my mind if I will fold for PG any more.PG has gone from a bring what you have , To a need up to date computers well 6 video cards 2 4p's lets say every 2 years is a little bit to much. Only good thing is the video cards that got fried running folding at home will all ways be under warranty. But the $4 to $5 k in upgrades a year are a bit much to chew on. When they come along and say in 3 months the computer you just built to run folding at home is now garbage.
Heck with that posting on core counts that saved me $3k in video cards that I was getting ready to buy and 8 new cpu's .For the time being I will leave my computers off it is up to PG if they will ever fold at this point I am thinking NOT.

Mod Edit: Fixed Quote Tags - PantherX

kerryd wrote: Adak your wrong on that. WCG sent out a poll asking how they could make it better for donors and what they mite need to change ,They email out xmass cards saying thanks. If I do not crunch for them for a month or so they ask where I am.In other words they at least make it look like they care. PG could give a flying or that is the way it seems.

I also fold for WCG, from time to time, so I know what you're talking about. They have better communication with their donors. No argument there. They do NOT however, allow donors to have detailed info on how and why they run their projects, as they do.

Yes, the emails are a nice touch, as are the webcasts. I really like them!

kerryd wrote: There is very little info on what folding even is or what your going to fold.

This is available, but it's written at a level that most of us can't understand. It's a major problem (this lack of good communication), from FAH. YOU HAVE HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD, BUDDY!

kerryd wrote: I still have not made up my mind if I will fold for PG any more.PG has gone from a bring what you have , To a need up to date computers well 6 video cards 2 4p's lets say every 2 years is a little bit to much. Only good thing is the video cards that got fried running folding at home will all ways be under warranty. But the $4 to $5 k in upgrades a year are a bit much to chew on. When they come along and say in 3 months the computer you just built to run folding at home is now garbage.

Heck with that posting on core counts that saved me $3k in video cards that I was getting ready to buy and 8 new cpu's .For the time being I will leave my computers off it is up to PG if they will ever fold at this point I am thinking NOT.

Updating a 4P, or several video cards, is a major expense. The increase in the BA threshold has made that VERY clear for BA folders. Obviously, PG want every folder to be able to continue folding in a meaningful way, even if they don't choose to update their folding rigs. Nobody should feel their rig is "garbage", just because their hardware isn't the latest and greatest.

Just a note FYI.

I have compiled the list, and PM'd it to Bruce. The list was created from posts in this thread, as well as posts in the [H]ardOCP BA change thread. Since I was a few hours late getting it done, I'll wait until the 11th to post it here.

Thanks to all those who PM'd me, and to many posters as well.

Why wait ? Just share with all of us ...

Christian, that delay is a courtesy. I said I would give it. Can't renege now.

Adak wrote:I also fold for WCG, from time to time, so I know what you're talking about. They have better communication with their donors. No argument there. They do NOT however, allow donors to have detailed info on how and why they run their projects, as they do.

No BOINC-project will give you any minute-by-minute referate from their latest meeting, but having such a referate wouldn't be very useful anyway so I don't see the lack of a referate as a problem.

While a message like "Redusing Deadline for XYZ to 7 Days" does not tell anything about actual server-setup, atleast to me as a cruncher it does convey the important parts like:
1: The reasons for the change in deadline.
2: Intended effect of the change.

For probaby 99% of donors this change has zero or negligible impact and the maybe 1% being affected has AFAIK not complained about the changes, possibly since due to #1 they agrees to the reasons and together with #2 they comes to similar conclusions about the change being implemented.

Here at FAH the 1% being affected by the BigAdv-change is on the other hand not silent...
... and atleast to me some of the reasons are that #1 is less clearly defined here, this makes it difficult to follow the reasons and additionally donors strongly disagree with #2.

Adak wrote: Show me just ONE research charity that gives their donors control over how they run the project.

I don't think it's about control of the project. It's Vijay's Project; I assume everyone accept that (I do ...). And that's ok. And yes, project in this size/complexity are maybe better not democratically organized. But nevertheless a clear/timely guidance and explanation from the captain to the crew is what keep a boat on course.

Rattledagger wrote:
While a message like "Redusing Deadline for XYZ to 7 Days" does not tell anything about actual server-setup, atleast to me as a cruncher it does convey the important parts like:
1: The reasons for the change in deadline.
2: Intended effect of the change.

For probaby 99% of donors this change has zero or negligible impact and the maybe 1% being affected has AFAIK not complained about the changes, possibly since due to #1 they agrees to the reasons and together with #2 they comes to similar conclusions about the change being implemented.

Here at FAH the 1% being affected by the BigAdv-change is on the other hand not silent...
... and atleast to me some of the reasons are that #1 is less clearly defined here, this makes it difficult to follow the reasons and additionally donors strongly disagree with #2.

I have to disagree with a couple of things, the reason was given by Kasson the ones it is affecting are not silent go back and read all the links left by Machaolic.

I do not believe Stanford is doing anything wrong with changing the requirements, it was is very well publicized that they will be changed from time to time as hardware capabilities advance the problem lies in the way it is done, there is currently no way to tell when it is going to happen and most of these rigs are built for 1 thing only. Some people are kind of misled by the lack of a road map as to how long there rig will be able to make the bigadv points. The intended affect is more people are going to run smp are they probably (yes) but not large #s some will be shut down.

The second problem is the lack of smp points and the supposed shortage of machines to run them. easy fix here add points to them until it is cleared up. There are currently allot better choices than running smp (GPU, Bigadv) if you cannot run the Bigadv then allot of the people are going to run GPU and shut smp down due to lack of incentive, (points)

I do not believe they need a new points system the one they have works fine, and can be adjusted if the need is there for an adjustment.

Then you have the PR problem and hopefully that will be fixed with the PR person that Vj says will be coming onboard.

I am still folding and plan to continue there are things that need to be fixed but I have hope and faith they will be, in fact I just purchased another i4P to add to the stables, I also have 3 rigs crunching Boinc protein folding projects and plan on continuing that also, unfortunately those rigs used to run smp but in reality the reward for running them was pretty bad compared to other choices, (GPU, Bigadv, Boinc)

Anyway whatever happens, happens I have spoken with Vj before and know he cares his goals may be different from mine I don't know if they are that is just the way it is. When it comes to the point the two do not meet then my donation will go to something else.

I have been asked to post this summary. These are the recommendations most everyone agreed with, and brief notes to put them in context.

1) A clear longer term road map, accurate for at least the next six months, preferably for a year.

• Folders will be looking to buy hardware, with folding as one big priority. Drop the "don't buy hardware for FAH" concept. It will happen frequently. That's just human nature.
  
  Immediate road map for the BA threshold is critical. In addition, include GPU and SMP changes for that same time period.

2) Limit changes to the BA threshold, to one per year. We want to fold BA wu's, but we can't keep up with three threshold changes in less than one year!

• a) More info on why the threshold is being raised. Especially "why so much and so often?".

3) A healthy increase in SMP points. The points per day per Watt, are so low the SMP wu's are viewed as not worth the cost to fold them.

• a) They aren't worth folding for any GPU folder.
  
  b) They are a huge drop in points, for ex-BA rigs. More than a 60% drop was reported on some wu's.
  
  c) Substantial boost is needed to provide the incentive to fold SMP.

4) Clearer communication, and more of it. There is a broad feeling that PG isn't listening to the donors. The announcements or replies from PG are typically lacking any specific information. The recent BA threshold increase announcement, is one good example of that.

• Typical response: "He wrote a lot without saying much of anything".
  
  Mentioning the threshold increases without giving specifics on the deadline changes. Leaves many BA folders incredibly stressed out. Several have reported they are no longer folding, just because of the stress they feel about this.

5) We need a non-scientist, but knowledgeable person, to serve as a communicator for the project. Someone who can speak for PG, on the forum, regularly. Having the moderators give us guesses regarding PG, is not enough.


6) We need a great deal more empathy from the moderators. Whether their post is concise or verbose, the attitude of moderator vs. donor, and the condescension we've seen in the past, must stop.

• We need to turn the harsh replies, like: "You're not being rational", or "That's a stupid idea", into "Have you studied that idea in depth?", or "I think there's a better way, what do you think about this ...?".
  
  The moderators give a great deal of info out (A+ in that department), but have fallen into a "donor versus PG or donor vs. moderator", attitude, far too often. Having fallen into this "us vs them" trap before on another forum, I can attest it's all too easy to slip into it. Nevertheless, it must be avoided. The moderators are in many cases, the most frequently read "face" of FAH.
  
  We need a lot more positive words of encouragement, (like a smile, but in words), and a lot less of "this is the way it is, take it or leave it", type of replies.

The above were compiled from both PM's sent to me, and from the BA threshold thread in FF, and on [H]ardOCP.

Your comments are welcome.

Special thanks to Nookie Bandit for sending me a new points system to study.

Whether we need a new point system or can adjust the current one, is unclear to me, at this time. We've had some thoughtful suggestions for it, but from a quick look at them, they appear to be overly complex and might substantially slow down the servers.

More study on that would be needed, however.