Folding Forum

There are NOT enough people folding. I myself just got started folding a month or so ago and in that short time, with pathetic equipment have risen into the top 20% of all folders, based on points. How is that possible? I am folding on a Dell laptop that is THREE years old. I should not be in the top 50%.

We need MORE folders to blow me out of the water!!!

I agree, there aren't enough. Feel free to help to solve that problem any way you like.

I think a lot of it is due to people abandoning usernames, since points can't transfer. But you'll be well on your way to being a world class folder!

Jesse_V wrote:I agree, there aren't enough. Feel free to help to solve that problem any way you like.

I think a lot of it is due to people abandoning usernames, since points can't transfer. But you'll be well on your way to being a world class folder!

I have tried talking a few friends into becoming folders but I'm unsure if they have taken the step. I dont want to be pushy.

I hope I slow down in my climb to the top. I got into the top 20% much too fast. I hope I dont reach the top 10% this year at all.

I have been nailed up 24X7 (really 23X7) since I commute with my laptop to work, every day since joining the folding team.

I certainly agree that we need more folders, but not on the basis of you being in the top 20%. As I calculate your standing, you're in the top 60%, and those 40% of folders that are below you include a lot of names who folded one or two WUs and quit.

Yes, there also are a lot of abandoned usernames. I, myself, have mistyped my username a few times and realized it rather quickly so most of those spelling errors only completed one or two WUs so while I did not abandon folding, I did abandon several incorrect names.

On you way to your rightful standing, you're going to pass a lot of people who are not moving up the ranks and eventually, you'll reach a standing in a group of others who have similar equipment to yours and are producing new WU results at the same rate that you are.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "idle" usernames have never been removed from the list have they?

With that in mind, even dedicated folders from the early days who may have folded 24/7 for years on single core procs would appear to be lightweights by todays standards if they are no longer folding.

http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/mai ... e=sswilson

If you have a look at my profile you'll see two teams, the smaller point team is from the old DFI Street forums which are no longer around so I'm folding for a different team... if you notice the points for the AngryFolders you'll see that they represent a fairly small number, but that's 900+ single core WUs which (IIRC) typically took days to complete and thus represents many months worth of work on more than one overclocked machine. In today's hardware / point scheme I can make those kinds of point in a couple of days with a single video card.

So by using that example you can see that points alone don't tell the whole picture.

Just as an FYI: in a related note, you can see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... pY1E#gid=7 for a graph of F@h participation (in terms of Active CPUs, which may not be the same as actual participants, but that's a separate discussion). This graph has the related thread viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21317

sswilson wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but "idle" usernames have never been removed from the list have they?

With that in mind, even dedicated folders from the early days who may have folded 24/7 for years on single core procs would appear to be lightweights by todays standards if they are no longer folding.

http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/mai ... e=sswilson

If you have a look at my profile you'll see two teams, the smaller point team is from the old DFI Street forums which are no longer around so I'm folding for a different team... if you notice the points for the AngryFolders you'll see that they represent a fairly small number, but that's 900+ single core WUs which (IIRC) typically took days to complete and thus represents many months worth of work on more than one overclocked machine. In today's hardware / point scheme I can make those kinds of point in a couple of days with a single video card.

So by using that example you can see that points alone don't tell the whole picture.

900 WU in a few days???? It took me 30 or more days to do just 60!!! *sigh*

bruce wrote:I certainly agree that we need more folders, but not on the basis of you being in the top 20%. As I calculate your standing, you're in the top 60%, and those 40% of folders that are below you include a lot of names who folded one or two WUs and quit.

Yes, there also are a lot of abandoned usernames. I, myself, have mistyped my username a few times and realized it rather quickly so most of those spelling errors only completed one or two WUs so while I did not abandon folding, I did abandon several incorrect names.

On you way to your rightful standing, you're going to pass a lot of people who are not moving up the ranks and eventually, you'll reach a standing in a group of others who have similar equipment to yours and are producing new WU results at the same rate that you are.

I think you looked at the wrong name. I fold under the name RattyM now. By my calculations, I am in the top 19% now.

Donor Rank 316481 of 1645336

Sorry but that would be the bottom 20% not the top.

Still you're doing very well for your setup. Keep up the great work.

Each WU took a few days, not 900 WU's done in a few days which is why it took months to complete.

Old points are not the same as new points. In the first year, I folded two top-end dual processor systems to get 60K in my first year. I can do that 60K in a day now with much lower-end machines with a far smaller monetary investment. So as you are passing all those old folders that aren't folding any more with not so many points be considerate and don't discount their contribution based on today's point system. There's been a lot of inflation going on over the years. Stanford reacts to human nature and people don't whine, or leave the program, as much when their points are going up as opposed to static or on a downward trend. Also, the machine are much faster and much less expensive than they used to be.

People leave all the time. In my team they typically left because they got pissed-off at Stanford. Often it was because they couldn't get the best WU's that were the most productive and they felt that they were getting arbitrarily shafted. A whole bunch left when GPU1 was discontinued for they felt that they had invested in a folding video card that was now being wasted. A bunch more left because they realized there was an actual cost to them in increased electricity bills when they folded on their machines 24x7.

The fact is that a large number of people that at one time folded don't anymore but they are kept on the books forever.

bollix47 wrote:

Donor Rank 316481 of 1645336

Sorry but that would be the bottom 20% not the top.

Still you're doing very well for your setup. Keep up the great work.

I got it backwards!!!! I guess I was not paying attention to the direction I was traveling with each WU completed. LOL

That's why I'm a chemist, and not a mathematician.

Ok..I'm glad I'm not in the top 20%. That should be hard to do, not easy.

P5-133XL wrote:Each WU took a few days, not 900 WU's done in a few days which is why it took months to complete.

Old points are not the same as new points. In the first year, I folded two top-end dual processor systems to get 60K in my first year. I can do that 60K in a day now with much lower-end machines with a far smaller monetary investment. So as you are passing all those old folders that aren't folding any more with not so many points be considerate and don't discount their contribution based on today's point system. There's been a lot of inflation going on over the years. Stanford reacts to human nature and people don't whine, or leave the program, as much when their points are going up as opposed to static or on a downward trend. Also, the machine are much faster and much less expensive than they used to be.

People leave all the time. In my team they typically left because they got pissed-off at Stanford. Often it was because they couldn't get the best WU's that were the most productive and they felt that they were getting arbitrarily shafted. A whole bunch left when GPU1 was discontinued for they felt that they had invested in a folding video card that was now being wasted. A bunch more left because they realized there was an actual cost to them in increased electricity bills when they folded on their machines 24x7.

The fact is that a large number of people that at one time folded don't anymore but they are kept on the books forever.

I am not discounting anyone's work. Not at all.

How do you get that sig where it lists all your points and positions?

RMouse wrote:I got it backwards!!!! I guess I was not paying attention to the direction I was traveling with each WU completed. LOL

That's why I'm a chemist, and not a mathematician.

Ok..I'm glad I'm not in the top 20%. That should be hard to do, not easy.

Actually you are in the top 20%. (316481/1645336)*100 = 19.235..
But as you go up you'll see an exponential increase in difficulty to move up the ranks.
I have managed to get 1 friend to fold, I hope to get more We do need more folders

bollix47 wrote:

Donor Rank 316481 of 1645336

Sorry but that would be the bottom 20% not the top.

Still you're doing very well for your setup. Keep up the great work.

As I understand it, if you are the 316,481st , from the best folder, among a total field of 1,645,336 folders , then you are in the top 20%. Would you please explain how you come to the different conclusion.

The title is correct. There is a need for more folders.

Yes, the top 20% in rank appears to be correct.

Full moons and math always get me confused.

Sorry RMouse, it was me who got it backwards.

Yes, more folders are always needed.