I think part of the issue that started this thread arose was due to what was considered 'cheating' changed several times w/o warning. So as we were playing by the rules it was then no longer acceptable. That happened 3 times.

What fake data? The results are typically legit. The work units were ran and unaltered. The data got reported. How is that fake results? What you should be saying is that people weren't running projects the way a very small group of individuals think they should run them and label it as "cheating". Again, that concept is only in the minds of few as the results are no different from anyone else's results. Cheating is when someone doesn't do the work but still claims the credit.

I find that the results produced by this project are only a best guess anyways. It does not tell me if someone overclocked their CPU. It does not tell me if they ran multiple work units on each device which can impact its results. Running multiple work units on a video card is no different than running multiple clients for NCI projects. Why? because by your logic they are following those same rules. It doesn't matter if they are cpu intense or not. Every project stresses the system different. They run different. They use different resources. If maximizing my GPU to its fullest is ok by running multiple work units then I should be able to the same on my CPU. Regardless of CPU intensive levels. That isn't cheating. That is utilizing your hardware to its fullest for the sake of the project. Yes it is something point seakers look at. But it is something people who want to maximize their resources look at as well. Who are you to determine that something like that is "cheating". What gives you that right? "Science" was performed and was not "faked". WUProp may not be able to report the way it wants to. But it never has been fully accurate since the beginning. And it never will be unless it can gain all of those individual system difference. Even then, it would be too much data to filter through.