Your Capey-Tun Is Takin' A Beating over at 911 :) – 4106 days old

[ImaginAsian]

Whew the punches are flying over at 911 on Poor Ole Team PC.

http://www.pcnineoneone.com/dcforum/computer/34753.html

Mons, go over there and give your members a nice back massge please

[TheHeretic]

well the part of the thread I read contained the nugget of truth that most should keep in mind. and that is "tis harder nay impossible to open a closed mind" They have closed to the idea of WU vs points. Let it rest at that.

You and I know different. merely go at em in the points area than. I havent compared teh two teams but seems as if it is getting the results you were wanting. more competition and more awareness of the project.

I wish ya luck over there in yer verbal swashbuckling but methinks your batting at stones in regards to the point vs WU's.



TheHeretic

[ImaginAsian]

U's right Here. I have given my last breath over this issue at pc911. I've given them hard data why the point system is a noble idea but data shows it to be poorly executed.

They continue to skirt my data and instead rely on theory of the points ratings by UD. Theory is only as good as the data, and the data suggests the Theory is flawed.

For those of you who aren't reading that thread here is just one piece of data why points was a good intention gone wrong.

Attached is JD's and IA's stats. JD has 2 years more of equivalent CPU Time donated, 3K more results but 200k less points. Recall that points was supposed to be a sign of the amount of "effort" someone does for the project. Clearly, JD has contributed more to the project then me yet his points DO NOT reflect that.

That's my whole argument. Points are not consistent enough to be a good statistic. Results has its flaws too but nothing as glaringly wrong as the data I have just showed you. Remember, the law of averages predicts everyone will get long and short proteins over time. So we all encounter the same amount of work to do. Results are "chunks" of works being sent back to Oxford. These chunks make up the complete result which is what they are after. Sort of like a puzzle with many pieces. We work on the "pieces". UD/Oxford decides how many pieces make up the puzzle for each target protein.

You all know I feel pretty strong about results. Just wanted everyone to understand why I feel that way. It's because of the data and not gut feelings or any loosely based foundation.

Anyway, we have made truce over there and agreed to disagree for good. We will track points and results for the good of all involved! I could use some backup from our team to ruffle their feathers a bit. It will put more rigs to work for the cancer project and that's what we are are after