Yes, I am going to sit here and say that. Numbers of WUs completed mean absolutely NOTHING when some WUs are 20 points and some WUs are 2000 points. Some WUs take 2 hours to finish and some WUs take 2 weeks to finish. How can you not comprehend there is no correlation there? No way to make equitable comparisons? It's like you are holding 2 pennies in one hand and 2 quarters in the other say saying they are the same. I can't comprehend how you can say 2 pennies equals 2 quarters?Guru wrote:You're honestly going to sit there and say that using the number of WUs completed is not fair, but assigning some number to a WU and passing that out is????? Um, you just said that it wasn't fair, but then you turn around and say it is? lol.... FAIR is listing what you are REALLY DOING. If WU sizes are a factor, then show an average, a minimum, and a maximum, and perhaps even list the number of small, medium, and large WUs... It's really not complicated. I don't get why you can't comprehend it.
Contribution? Yes. Foolish, no. Because time has nothing to do with the amount of science completed. Without a rate, time does not equal distance. (distance = rate x time)Guru wrote:Don't be a fool. There are people interested in how much time is being dedicated to the service, and it's a very real factor in terms of contribution.
Stanford evaluates the science completed, and then sets a benchmark score, then all work units are scored against that benchmark. Hardly random. BTW, I have ZERO GPUs folding.Guru wrote:No, you're wrong again. All factors, when put together, make up a good comparison. I'm blown away that you think a random scoring system is better than comparing factual data. It this strictly because you've spent a lot of money on video cards?
Sorry, but when you said that CPUs and GPUs were about the same in that previous post, I'm doubting any logic you post.Guru wrote:My idea is awesome, but you're not being logical...
Yes, they are weighted... on scientific production. If you want to claim some nut job conspiracy, go post that somewhere else. Stanford has much higher standards than that, and your suggestion is insulting.Guru wrote:LOL So they ARE weighting GPU scores!!! Thanks for the confirmation... I'll bet it has a lot to do with financial dontations as well... Hey, I was right about the assumption that they were favoring the GPUs, so that just strengthens my odds of being right about this as well...