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.

Funny, my contributions to WCG are broken down by app when I look at "My Contribution" page on the WCG website.

Yes, we all saw what Seb said about new badges. Aside from me explaining what I meant in my original post in this thread I don't think we are talking about that any more. The conversation has moved onto discussing tracking hours and what projects actually do so. So evidently some of us don't find the discussion pointless.

Yes, we all saw what Seb said about new badges. Aside from me explaining what I meant in my original post in this thread I don't think we are talking about that any more. The conversation has moved onto discussing tracking hours and what projects actually do so. So evidently some of us don't find the discussion pointless.

Agreed.

---

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.

my contributions to WCG are broken down by app when I look at "My Contribution" page on the WCG website.

Technically Coleslaw is correct; WCG breaks the run time down per 'sub'-project, and not per app - for example, FightAIDS@Home has/had two apps:

FightAIDS@Home - AutoDock
FightAIDS@Home - Vina

That said, some WCG sub-projects only have one app (or one app per OS, which are combined here anyway), so the run time stats for those sub-projects are effectively the same as the run time for their apps.
AFAIK they still don't publish this data, though some people have managed to turn it into a badge using a weak key, I think.

Funny, my contributions to WCG are broken down by app when I look at "My Contribution" page on the WCG website.

Screen shot where you see that. I just see totals for sub projects. Not their apps. FAAH has 2 apps and BETA has had several.

So, as you saw from the post you quoted of mine just now, I too was adding clarification.

The pointless part of the discussion is continuing where the project admin said he would not do. That is that.

---

My mistake, it is indeed by sub project and not app. Then again several WCG project only run one app.

I'm not here for fight Coleslaw. Not sure why you want to be argumentative about it but what ever.

My mistake, it is indeed by sub project and not app. Then again several WCG project only run one app.

I'm not here for fight Coleslaw. Not sure why you want to be argumentative about it but what ever.

That is like the pot calling the kettle black don't you think? Let's rehash. You made a suggestion. I and others disagreed. The discussion moved on. You felt the need to clarify yourself and bring your idea back up after Seb was clear that he wouldn't consider total run time. Thus you are basically either disregarding the admins view or are feeling argumentative yourself.Then you asked for a list of projects that reported based on run time. skgiven brought up WCG. I answered the question by adding to his statement and also pointed out another project that did it for one of its apps. Then once again you were the one that argued stating a false truth that WCG did something they don't do. Then when not only I but skgiven points out your error, you point the finger at me for wanting to just fight with you and argue? You do know that intelligent discussion includes disagreement right? People aren't trying to attack you. They just don't agree and don't stand by when misinformation is presented as fact. You can dislike us when we correct things but that doesn't mean we want to argue. We want to be accurate and factual.

---

Coleslaw, Seb doesn't need to make a new badge on here for total run time, but it would be nice to be able to have it on http://signature.statseb.fr/ here:

https://eternalparadox14.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/stats-site.png

And therefore, it is an optional feature.

---

I think many could very easily argue that for seb to create it just for hosting it on badge pages/stats sites isn't much different than having it at the project too.

Basically, it is almost the same thing and is just splitting hairs. I would call it beating a dead horse. But, by all means feel free to continue the beating.

---

Sigh, I made a mistake and admitted it. You act like I flat out lied on purpose to back up my argument and that wasn't the case. But what ever, your always right and every one must fall in line with your way of thinking.

Sigh all this just because a few people wanted a way to show the compute hours. I surrender, Coleslaw wins the forum flame wars. I got better things to do.

More Buttered Popcorn Please ... lol

2 things:
1. Yay! Multiple badges are here! Congrats on your 3, Ste\/e!

2. The idea of having the total computing hours on the stats site is ideal - it would please everybody, Coleslaw, for example:
People like you, who think it is pointless, wouldn't need to show the badge, whereas people like me and Khali would be able to show it if we chose. It would also make the project more well known - people would look at their signature page and see "Total Hours (WUProp)", then people would think "hmm I want to show that badge - I'll go and join the project...

Basically, it's a win-win situation.

---

Zombie has 3 too, in fact 1 more star than me ...

Thank you very much for this Sebastien, it makes it a lot easier to keep track of what shape I'm in.

One quick glance and it's all there...

---

I didn't see that, Ste\/e - thanks for pointing it out :D I also see that LBC001 Has 3 badges too

---

Weeeeee!

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

You seem excited, zombie67 [MM] :D

---

Doctor Now suggested:

Badges for the total credits are also missing... ;-)

I like this idea. All we'd need is a single colored star superimposed on the WUProp circle, but larger than the current stars. We could keep the current colors too so we'd just need new 10 badges.

I'd also like to suggest a third class of badge that shows how many apps you've run under 100 hours. It can be a challenge to rack these up so it's as much an achievement to get 20 obscure apps under 100 Hrs as it is to get 20 PG/Einstein apps over 100 Hrs. This badge could be identical to the current badge (5 X 20) but all the stars are white with a black border.

In the signatures, each class could be selectable.

Thanks for your consideration!

Doctor Now suggested:

Badges for the total credits are also missing... ;-)

I like this idea. All we'd need is a single colored star superimposed on the WUProp circle, but larger than the current stars. We could keep the current colors too so we'd just need new 10 badges.

I'd also like to suggest a third class of badge that shows how many apps you've run under 100 hours. It can be a challenge to rack these up so it's as much an achievement to get 20 obscure apps under 100 Hrs as it is to get 20 PG/Einstein apps over 100 Hrs. This badge could be identical to the current badge (5 X 20) but all the stars are white with a black border.

In the signatures, each class could be selectable.

Thanks for your consideration!

Personally I prefer the numerical display of Total hours:.

When BOINC was created and SETI@home switched over to it. One of my biggest complains was that computational time was no longer tracked. I had brought that up during the BOINC alpha test days but no one seemed to care.

One of my biggest complains was that computational time was no longer tracked. I had brought that up during the BOINC alpha test days but no one seemed to care.

I don't remember that original SETI counted the computational time, but the workunit count. I had exactly crunched 2.400 units, that's the only thing I know.
If they recorded the time also that would have been quite unique for such an early project, unfortunately there's no chance to look upon that, the original site might be still there, but when I want to look my stats, I get a blank page.

---

Life is Science, and Science rules. To the universe and beyond
Member of BOINC@Heidelberg
My BOINC-Stats

One of my biggest complains was that computational time was no longer tracked. I had brought that up during the BOINC alpha test days but no one seemed to care.

I don't remember that original SETI counted the computational time, but the workunit count. I had exactly crunched 2.400 units, that's the only thing I know.
If they recorded the time also that would have been quite unique for such an early project, unfortunately there's no chance to look upon that, the original site might be still there, but when I want to look my stats, I get a blank page.

You might be able to find your stats on the SETI@home classic site if you look for your team. If you still can't find your stats on the classic site get the information on your current SETI@home account page.
On my account:
SETI@home classic workunits 93,865
SETI@home classic CPU time 863,447 hours
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_user.php?userid=792