Folding Forum

Change of approach. Current: Economic statistics. I propose: Statistical productivity

(Before reading. Apologize for the Dyslexic English, it is the fault of the translator.)

Current approach is based on the historical accumulation of points a team.

I propose: ranking and overall statistics, submitted with respect to the productivity of the last 30 days (or 7 days)

Objectives: A ranking that promotes participation and current productivity. The historical accumulation, that is history.

The current approach discourages the formation of new teams. With fresh funds do grow the total production. In addition, NO it encourages old teams, to seek new recruits, to maintain or exceed its position.

I suggest to study the matter. The important thing here is not the accumulation of wealth of my grandparents. This is what today is producing my team.

I studied much the theme and analysed statistics, Folding@home, and all the approaches of Kakao Stats, which are the best. I came to the conclusions which I summarize the previous lines.

Thank you very much for your attention. Discuss it. Analyze it. I do not like much involved with the problem of the language. I read your forum. It is the best in Folding@home

Jorge Arturo Barrientos Valerio. jabarrientosvalerio@Yahoo.com
http://www.facebook.com/Costa.Rica.Pura.Vida.Folding
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ESPAÑOL:
Cambio de enfoque. Actual: Estadísticas PATRIMONIALES. Propongo: Estadísticas PRODUCTIVIDAD

Enfoque actual está basado en la acumulación histórica de puntos de un Equipo

Propongo: El ranking y en general las estadísticas, se presenten con respecto a la productividad de los últimos 30 días (o 7 días).

OBJETIVO
Un ranking que promueva la participación y productividad actual. La acumulación histórica, es eso historia.

El enfoque actual desincentiva la formación de Equipos nuevos. Que con recursos frescos hagan crecer la producción total. Además, NO incentiva a los equipos viejos, a buscar nuevos adeptos, para mantener o superar su posición.

Les sugiero estudien el asunto. Lo importante aquí, no es la acumulación de riqueza de mis abuelos. Se trata de lo que hoy esta produciendo mi equipo.

Estudié mucho el tema y analicé estadísticas, de Folding@home, y todos los enfoques de Kakao Stats, que son las mejores. Llegué a las conclusiones que resumo en los renglones anteriores.

Muchas gracias por su atención. Discútanlo. Analícenlo. No me gusta mucho participar, por el problema del idioma.
Leo su foro. Es el mejor en Folding@home

Jorge Arturo Barrientos Valerio. jabarrientosvalerio@Yahoo.com
http://www.facebook.com/Costa.Rica.Pura.Vida.Folding

If you want this, set up your own stats site and get busy. You don't need to change the whole stats system to do this type of tracking.

I was that vested interests are very powerful. Sometimes difficult to overcome.
That promote is an approach. That it encourages the integration of new equipment and old equipment.
If I am taken 18 hours a day; convincing, helping to install Folding@home, advertising, etc. That is my mission.

I mentioned something similar in this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=19062&start=15#p188095

However, since points don't expire, it is really just a matter of accounting convention on how you display the accumulation.

Yearly, quarterly, monthly, daily; as opposed to lifetime total; It is really just up to anyone how they want to look at it.

The reason this is really not an issue for PG is that independent STATS SITES have always been allowed to accumulate and parse the basic information anyway they want. Hence the response that you are free to promote a site that only charts a limited amount of information.

For example, you could follow only a revolving 12 month period. The stats would be for production for exactly the last year to date, everyday adding that days production, and deleting the 366th day ago.

The combination and permutations are endless.

I don't disagree with your view, just pointing out why it does not fundamentally change the process from PG end of the equation.

Good luck.

Jorge1950 wrote: The current approach discourages the formation of new teams.

I disagree somewhat. We see new teams start up every day.

And I have seen several technology changes in my many years of folding. After each change, new teams rise, some old teams sink, and some well run teams are always in the chase for the top. But it never stays the same for very long. And any old teams that don't keep up with changes will slowing sink to the bottom, making room for newer teams that do adapt and promote ongoing participation.

Also, historical points are not so hard to overcome as you seem to think. Many years ago when I started folding, $3000 bought a computer that could produce 300 points per day. Today, that same $3000 can produce 600,000 points per day or more. So the power of today's computers makes it easier to overcome the accumlated points of years gone by.

And as noted above, you can compile and sort a list of points any way you want.

However, Pande Group does read the forum, and if they see merit in your suggestion, they may persue it.

By studying the speeches and the link "mdk777" and "7im", reinforcing my approach. A million points from a year ago, doesn't mean the same as a million today.
I collaborate processing data from more than 20 year old; Seti, Genome, Folding and other. I am a University Professor of Statistics. And me I professionalize in the area of software development.

Good statistics always have a philosophy that supports them. In our case of FA, philosophy is to promote the current competition. It is not demonstrate which historical accumulations are worth more. To keep the head today, we must fight today.

In a column should show the historical accumulation of points the team, for historical reference . It wouldn't agree to zero again every year. But each team to maintain or exceed its position, must now provide their work. It stimulates ancient groups, because they easily go up or down, depending on your effort today. The new teams are on equal footing with the old ones.

The Rankin should be based on the production of the last 30 days. It is a reasonable time, where cyclical variations, lost importance.

Do any of you remember the slogan of the old Eastern Airlines in the 70's and 80's - when headed by Frank Borman, the former astronaut who commanded the Apollo 8 mission that circled the moon.





And, oh by the way, there is, indeed, a steady stream of new teams being formed. (Stats from Free-DC Distributed Computing Stats System)

7im wrote:

Jorge1950 wrote: The current approach discourages the formation of new teams.

I disagree somewhat. We see new teams start up every day.

And I have seen several technology changes in my many years of folding. After each change, new teams rise, some old teams sink, and some well run teams are always in the chase for the top. But it never stays the same for very long. And any old teams that don't keep up with changes will slowing sink to the bottom, making room for newer teams that do adapt and promote ongoing participation.

Also, historical points are not so hard to overcome as you seem to think. Many years ago when I started folding, $3000 bought a computer that could produce 300 points per day. Today, that same $3000 can produce 600,000 points per day or more. So the power of today's computers makes it easier to overcome the accumlated points of years gone by.

And as noted above, you can compile and sort a list of points any way you want.

However, Pande Group does read the forum, and if they see merit in your suggestion, they may persue it.

I thought you'd been involved longer than that 7im, I can remember when a team milestone with "congrats all round" was a 500 point total...
To the OP, the EOC stats page that is widely used can display various "ladders" if desired in both the overall and team pages, just click on the top header to sort by that criteria,
such as all teams list in total points (standard): http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/team_list.php?s=
all teams list in current production: (24hr average production tab: http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... p?s=&srt=3
and by total Wu count: http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... p?s=&srt=7
as a few examples, if you are suggesting a change in how these values are recognised however that's a totally different matter.

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.

You can find from day to day who is the best at EOC stats site there are many different ways to sort the information at EOC stats. http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... p?s=&srt=1

I think everyone understands the emphasis of your approach.

However, I'm not sure everyone understands how you intend to enforce it.

Are you advocating that all historical points expire officially?

....That PG only recognize and report month to date scores?

If this is what you are advocating, I don't think it has much of a chance.

Let me give you an analogy of a sport in the US that is steeped in statistics. Baseball.

The only real statistic that maters for a picture is winning the game, right?

However, since more than one can play in a game, an entire statistics regime follows him through his career.

These statistics don't change who wins a pennant, or the world series; they are only an aggregation of how one player performs during his career.

I won't bore you with the details. My point is that these statistics don't really count for anything, (I suppose they might be tied to performance clauses in salary contracts) in the actual game. However, they do give a picture of how the player did by season, and rank a comparison for his achievements over his career.

PG does not tell donors how to judge their career. It is up to the individual, or his team to set the innings, game, or series length.

You are certainly free to set the game length at 30 days, but that won't eliminate people wanting to look at their yearly and lifetime records.

You mention economic statistics but don't apply your reasoning to the economy. By your reasoning I should stop putting my money into my 401k retirement plan and savings account because in a year or whatever they will no longer exist. Without the perceived accumalation of wealth, the world would be in chaos. It is these laws of economy that keep us as a civilized society.

In real life it valued by the current productivity. Each year the winner is not having more accumulated pennants. It is that better is desepeño in the season. ALWAYS IS THE CASE.

Textual quotation of earlier intervention:
"In a column should show the historical accumulation of points the team, for historical reference . It wouldn't agree to zero again every year. But each team to maintain or exceed its position, must now provide their work. It stimulates ancient groups, because they easily go up or down, depending on your effort today. The new teams are on equal footing with the old ones. "

Precisely the economic statistics have an underlying philosophy. The accumulation of wealth. But the FA approach should not be that. It must be like in baseball. Statistics of the season highlight best performance teams that season. Also have important historical statistics as a reference.

I just hope that the translation is legible. Anyway, I already explained my idea. I believe that open and intelligent minds. As the of you may appreciate the positive or negative, of this approach.

Jorge Arturo Barrientos Valerio

Sorry for a clarification.
Someone said that I want to impose my ideology. It is not that. The solid discussion, without insults, with respect, is to improve.
My English dyslexic is the product of Microsoft Translator.

Well, perhaps not impose.

However, as an idea there really is not much to discuss.

It is how it is applied, implemented, or realized into a practice that becomes important.

As they say, the devil is in the details.