Chris, you do have an argument but you've struggled with the comebacks, missed some valid points and presented some weak opinions.

The Biggie is that WUProp already has a project badge and it’s not for overall contribution, so your argument is actually for a second project badge!

Not having lots of powerful systems does not prevent you contributing to lots of projects or getting a full suite of stars:
Your N2840 & i5 CPU M 520 processors alone could get you a bronze star in 2weeks and in theory you could get all 5 stars in just 10 weeks.

The concept of doing lots of work for one project on a Raspberry Pi doesn't add up either:
It's a very weak processor for crunching, so it's not going to actually do much other than add up runtime hours, which is almost as pointless as running quake apps without the necessary equipment.

As pointed out, you get stars/a project badge by crunching for 20+ projects because the project is about collecting data for lots of Boinc projects and it encourages people to crunch for lots of projects – not necessarily all at the same time.
Before there were any badges I contributed to the data collection and used it analytically. This is the projects identity/philosophy.

The obvious but understated fact is that with limited systems your contribution will be limited.
You will not reach 100,000h for 20apps with a single core Celeron – it would take over 228years.
Those stars are to accommodate people with many systems &/or those who crunch for a long time, and there is a well stated need for that.

However, there is also a need to accommodate people with one or two systems and to accommodate people who don’t crunch 24/7. That’s where your main argument exists.

Take someone with a dual core desktop who only crunches during work hours when the system is not in use. They are likely to only crunch about 2h per day/core. In a working week that’s only around about 20h. So it would take 5weeks to reach 100h for one app and 100weeks (2years) to reach one bronze star. By not accommodating these people the project isn’t collecting data from the systems which are likely to be rarer but comparatively useful architectures.

There are a couple of other arguments for a project badge:
Even with several systems, some stars are very difficult to get. The time between each app colour update doubles, which makes it increasingly less appealing to chase higher colours, and running 20 apps each for 11.4years of processor time just isn’t feasible if you don’t have the equipment; the apps simply aren’t around long enough. So many crunchers have thousands of hours that don’t contribute towards anything badge ways. At present I have 218,000h from my top 20apps that are above blue (5,000h) but don’t count for the next star (as I don’t have 20 apps over 10,000h). That’s the equivalent of 43 more blue apps, or another 2 blue stars if I had spread my time equally.
However, of those apps 6apps are already dead, and will never reach the next level.

If you look down crunchers app lists you can see many redundant/obsolete/dead apps:
From my profile you can see 6/20, 8/20, 6/20, 5/20, & 7/20 from the first 5 stars are dead apps and 11/20, 15/20, 12/20, 14/20, 12/16 from the apps that don’t count for anything (a point in itself), but possibly better addressed with additional badges which in turn would ignite your argument, as 5+ more stars would mean the project has 2+ badges and therefore doesn’t have one project badge but several.

Anyway, 49% of the apps I’ve crunched for are now dead, I've got 40apps all under 100h that count for nothing (badge ways), there is one project badge because Seb want’s it that way and we neither have subsequent badges or a runtime based project badge.

skgiven,

I thought I was struggling with comebacks, haha, and I suppose I have lost the arguement now that everybody else has presented their views, and that the project encourages a range of apps to be crunched, and also that it is not the project's fault if people do not have good enough computers, or enough cores to crunch.

I am now nearing my first badge (could have got it a while back, but wanted to do more work on certain apps - I have 14 processors running for me, with 2 computers running 7 qcn projects (Taiwan isn't working, or it would be 8), so every hour rakes in 28 computing hours), and I suspect that I shall be at my first badge within a month :D .

A handful of my apps are dead too, but I try to crunch as much as I can if I know it is going to die soon, so I can try to get at least one color with it.

And I agree with the fact that Seb only wants one TYPE of badge, but I still think that another badge that is the same should be made - you, for example, have 5 stars and a theoretical 6th (nearly 7th), so another badge should be brought out to recognize that, I believe...

---

skgiven, your points are exactly what others do argue especially the ever so ongoing debate at WCG. I'm on the side that says that crunching 1 wu does not entitle you to the badge. I am a believer that everyone should actually earn the badges that were created. I don't believe in this t-ball mentality. For those outside the USA t-ball is basically an early childish version of American baseball where they put the ball on a stick for the kid to swing at. Every kid gets a turn. Every kid gets a trophy. No kids experience a loss. And many people are now seeing that kids growing up with that type of mentality struggle with failures later in life as they don't tend to learn the basic skills of coping with failure. I don't believe everyone should get a trophy just for showing up. We already have very easy and attainable badges. We don't need something just handed to you for attaching in the first place. Just like at WCG where you have to have 14 days of run time, here you should still put your time in as it is designed.

If Seb feels differently, then that is his right. I for one do not think it is needed and would not look highly on such a badge. I'm not a fan of run time badges as an RPi is not equivalent to modern CPU's and certainly don't compare to the results of a GPU. We aren't talking efficiency but raw work being done in the here and now. Those that get more work done in shorter amount of time should get the higher badges as more work was completed. Those using slow out of date systems should not "look" equivalent. Just my opinion. I contribute on a very wide variety of hardware. They are not equal. Period.

---

I'm still on the fence UBT - Chris about the "second" set of stars idea as it is already a bit late. Some are already pushing a 3rd set. At this point it is kinda the wrong direction to head but rather maybe adjusting the current one as had been suggestion in other threads to accompany more stars or something entirely different. For example: WCG recently changed theirs from just changing colors to adding 5, 10, etc... on a generic white background badge to indicate larger levels. Perhaps a system more along those lines would be better used. I'm not sure how adding a number would fit in conjunction with the stars and colors, but it may be better long term in some way. Maybe just give everyone up to 5 stars (5 badges) and put a number of how many of each has been obtained. Not saying that is a great idea in the first place, but an option needs to have long term built into it as systems just keep getting more and more powerful.

If no change is made, I'm fine with that. As projects die, it just makes the challenge to push the badge level that more interesting. And as you have said, if I know a project is ending, I too will try and reach a certain goal level.

---

I won't add badges for total hours or credit.
I'm thinking about adding badges for more set of stars.
For example, Coleslaw badges could be

---

Sebastien, I think the modifications to show the badges with a "star number" in the design is great and allows for more up to 9 or 10 if ever needed.

---

I won't add badges for total hours or credit.
I'm thinking about adding badges for more set of stars.
For example, Coleslaw badges could be

I think having the expanded ("double" or "triple") badges would be great. But those number (1, 2, etc) are a bit cluttered.

In my case a simple: would do just fine.
[But they should be squeezed a little closer together :-) ]

---

I won't add badges for total hours or credit.
I'm thinking about adding badges for more set of stars.
For example, Coleslaw badges could be

I think having the expanded ("double" or "triple") badges would be great. But those number (1, 2, etc) are a bit cluttered.

In my case a simple: would do just fine.
[But they should be squeezed a little closer together :-) ]

I agree, just the addition of another badge (Or more if applicable) would suffice, the numbers make it look like I don't know what but not a good look to me ... :)

---

https://signature.statseb.fr/sig-1323.png
https://stats.free-dc.org/badgesbanner.php?cpid=13a87c3a303bcdca4ba0ed600daebb6b

Though the numbers feel more like a change, I don't think they are necessary if you are adding multiple clusters of stars. No matter how you look at it, you only have so many bronze, so many silver, so many gold, etc... If numbers are used, it should be to reduce badge replication in some way. That is why I mentioned giving everyone a single star for each level they have obtained and then put a number inside it indicating how many of those they have.

---

I don't agree with additional badges, but rather the extension of the one we already have. Just show the first, then roll (like a dice; one icon per face) to the 2nd side of the badge, 3rd, 4th...
That way there is infinite scope.
There is no need for the numbers - the biggest badge is obviously the first.

This is what I meant, albeit for WCG,
Show the first 5 stars for 1, 2 or 3 seconds and then the next set of up to 5 (for those who have 5 more) and so on.

If numbers are used, it should be to reduce badge replication in some way. That is why I mentioned giving everyone a single star for each level they have obtained and then put a number inside it indicating how many of those they have.

That is a perfect idea, other than the problem that you could have 20 of the first 5 badge levels, then your badge would be full, thus creating the problem again - I think that your idea would work, as well as multiple badges - having more than one badge isn't a bad thing, I mean - look at POGS: http://signature.statseb.fr/index.py?badge=169, but something should be done, or any extra app's hours will be "wasted". I use the term wasted quite loosely, because the hours will
a) still contribute to your total hours; and
b) help out the app/project in question...

---

I won't add badges for total hours or credit.
I'm thinking about adding badges for more set of stars.
For example, Coleslaw badges could be

I think having the expanded ("double" or "triple") badges would be great. But those number (1, 2, etc) are a bit cluttered.

In my case a simple: would do just fine.
[But they should be squeezed a little closer together :-) ]

I agree, just the addition of another badge (Or more if applicable) would suffice, the numbers make it look like I don't know what but not a good look to me ... :)

Ste\/e's 12 stars squeezed together,

The scrolling through idea would work - they key is that we want to be able to display more than 5 badges...

---

I don't know how we got off on adding in more stars, numbers, etc. But, all I was aiming at was a way to reflect the total hours we all have put into Boinc projects. You can find a large selection of websites and forum signatures that will tell you how many total credits you have. I don't know of any where else that actually keeps track of the hours of computer time you put into a project. If some one knows of such a website that tracks hours please link it.

Any way, reflecting the total hours you have contributed via a colored background on the existing badge was my suggestion. Not a new badge at all, just a modification of the one we have now.

I like that idea, Khali, and I suppose it might be possible for Seb (the person who runs http://signature.statseb.fr/) to get an xml export file from WUProp, so the total hours can be displayed on your signature (therefore, if you didn't want to show your total hours, you wouldn't have to).

---

I don't know of any where else that actually keeps track of the hours of computer time you put into a project. If some one knows of such a website that tracks hours please link it.

There is a project that does just that, but only for itself - World Community Grid (WCG); they record your overall Total Run Time, Points Generated and the number of Results Returned. This is what I have,

Total Run Time (y:d:h:m:s) (Rank) 123:201:23:12:58 (#635)
Points Generated (Rank) 121,485,557 (#860)
Results Returned (Rank) 244,326 (#817)

WCG also records how many hours you contribute to each sub-project they have.
My effort, up to now:

- Project - Points - Results - Run Time
Outsmart Ebola Together 446,550 1,829 0:103:20:02:19
Uncovering Genome Mysteries 2,664,695 4,167 1:298:03:43:12
Mapping Cancer Markers 7,712,271 10,346 5:250:14:24:25
Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 7,621,288 7,335 5:073:15:24:51
FightAIDS@Home 10,506,992 17,780 11:138:03:42:51
Beta Testing 1,141,865 2,225 1:100:11:04:26
Comp. 4 Sustainable Water 2,559,812 5,977 2:038:16:07:58
Say No to Schistosoma 3,497,860 5,676 3:257:09:53:05
GO Fight Against Malaria 3,674,912 4,573 3:292:03:27:04
Drug Search for Leishmaniasis 3,577,094 3,928 3:345:02:20:37
Computing for Clean Water 5,265,786 11,976 5:065:21:38:27
Discv. Dengue Drugs Phase 2 2,030,991 6,350 2:021:13:02:34
Cure Muscular Dystrophy P2 16,124,269 50,335 20:178:23:35:36
Influenza Antiviral Drug Search 1,251,141 1,964 1:107:14:02:51
Help Fight Childhood Cancer 21,426,201 26,111 24:218:13:11:51
The Clean Energy Project 824,733 933 0:318:06:45:43
Nutritious Rice for the World 4,368,466 6,179 5:004:10:09:34
Help Conquer Cancer 17,092,736 63,216 14:087:19:37:34
AfricanClimate@Home 1,058 2 0:000:11:15:26
Discovering Dengue Drugs 524,994 1,084 0:196:05:59:44
Genome Comparison 4,192 41 0:002:07:59:08
Human Proteome Folding 2 9,167,651 12,299 10:021:15:43:42

WCG existed before WUProp and long before WUProp had any badges, so anyone who accumulated lots of credits for WCG years ago doesn't get them displayed here - WUProp does not retroactively display contribution, which is fare enough as WUProp is really a stats project that provides info about systems and performance per app that the WUProp App HAS SEEN.

---

=sticky tape=

Skgiven, I am well aware of WCG and how it tracks hours. I run WCG from time to time. It's not my major focus generally but I do and am running the projects they offer. But that is the only project I know of that even pays attention to compute hours. The vast majority of Boinc projects track points only.

I'm not real worried about keeping track of what I have run before I came across WU Prop. If a stat website would be able to come up with a way to track that retroactively that would be cool but its not a concern for me. I would just like to see our total hours reflected in some way here on WU Prop.

Well WCG also isn't breaking the run time down per app on their site either. However, yes they are the only project reporting the run times as described above.

OProject only reported the ALX app for run time.

But as Seb said above, he isn't planning on adding badges for total hours. So, the discussion is pointless.

---

Could Seb create an xml and then put it on his signature site, so that (if you wanted), you could display your total hours in a similar way to the UoTD count? If he could, I would like that.

---