So... what you are saying is that enough of us that skew the numbers via mining... we can take these guys down?  

Eh... I joke a lot... I'd not use this on BOINC.. I will bitcoin mine or the like just for giggles... I do love stirring the pot though.

I think AB could be "on to something" with that idea.  If I understood it correctly, if a new person started Crunching, they may not read this thread or understand why the points are so out of whack when they go to the stats site to see how they are doing.  It is rare for a person to just Fold or Crunch and not want to look at their stats, especially in the early days.  A sticky such as AB suggests would explain to them why there are differences and provide the links to see the stats both ways.  The only thing that I could not get to work when I used the link (that excludes mining) was the User level pie-chart for our team.  It was still representing User contribution with mining included.  My guess is that the people running that site did not realize that when they created the two views (mining and sans mining).
 
Alternately, if this situation is a "flash in the pan" and will go away/be resolved soon, then the sticky may not be needed.  My feeling is that we could see more (not less) of mining involved things like BU.  Mining has its own issues and problems, but does not appear to be going away any time soon.
 
My 2-cents...

OK...
 
There is a difference in approach here Viper, not opinions.

1. I agree these items should be played with and we should encourage folks to try.
2. I do NOT agree that we should have member bragging about how they are smoking everyone that worked for YEARS, in a few weeks.
3. That has created a no less than five long term members to express to me their distaste and concern.
4. No one is saying this is going away soon, and THAT is the problem.
5. A similar situation happened with folding and they added Cryptocurrency. I mentioned this very early on in this thread, and it was not responded to. I think Mining should be added to that forum. 
6. Mining is so graphically different points wise and focus/agenda wise it has NO PLACE in Crunching in my personal opinion.

 
What should happen in these situations where it can cause this type of challenge is...

1. The Captains ask for folks to test it out for a month so the Captains can see if it would... 
   1. Cause any point skewing beyond what we already experience
   2. Helps humanity 
   3. What issues equipment wise that can come up
   4. Learn how many hours each WU runs
   5. What options of components works best
   6. All so when a thread is created to announce we are adding a project to the team folks are starting with both feet on the ground running.

 
This protects the team from this very type of situation. That did not happen, and we have a responsibility to bring that kind of thinking online and move forward. We cannot wait for others to fix this situation as even another day of mining will take a decade of regular work to overcome.
 
Fairness and what is the right thing to do for the team is the only focus and responsibility this thread is bringing to light.
 
I move that Mining be removed from Crunching@ EVGA until proper testing/research can be conducted. No less than 30 days of testing from 10 members. Then the Captains of this team can talk it out. They can bring it here and ask for help. What we cannot have is one Captain making the decision in a situation like this that has a far reaching impact on the team, and why there are multiple Captains.
 
Sometimes we have to work through bumps... This happens to be one. No individual has done anything close to wrong at this point. We do however, as Charter members, members and Captains, to raise our hands and say... "Hey, is this the right project for Crunching" or not.

devlin85

Afterburner
 

1. I do NOT agree that we should have member bragging about how they are smoking everyone that worked for YEARS, in a few weeks.
2. That has created a no less than five long term members to express to me their distaste and concern

I hope your not talking about me AB, the first and constant thing I said in my posts was how ludicrous the points are. And then how because of this I'm going to trash all of my hard work in 1 day (point wise) and even catch up to the greats in the group that have been crunching for years (I was rank 13 in the group before I started it up so I already put in some decent time myself).
 
At any rate today is the final day I'll be mining on BOINC. Which will be just over 1 billion points. Effecting the group ranking positively by 7 spots. 
 
Whether we decide to move the points/bitcoin projects to a new name or not I don't really care, they're just points, I though the real "point" was the science anyway  And any attention the group gets, meaning the higher up the list we are, the more members will join, leading to more points and more power for science. (That's just my 2 cents) 

No. I have repeated several times no one person has done wrong. It is however the example used in this discussion as it is in most about points.
 
Yes it is about the science. Again, my point in nearly every post.
 
And as more and more folks chime in we will have a good overall feel. I just put a personal opinion out there to get this thread to move forward and help.
 
And one question that one must ask themselves... If mining was not causing a stir, would I have made a thread to help? Again. This is NOT about those choosing to do it. It is about what is so drastically different with mining vs. Crunching.
 
In fact... There it is simplified... Mining is not Crunching...
 
Please do not take one sentence or two out of a full post and make that the message. My entire post as a whole is the message. Not one or two sentences. 
 

No no no Viper... I felt the same way yesterday... But for the team I am staying engaged for us all to find the best path. That does not mean my suggestion is or is not. Please offer up!
 
P.S...... I think this thread is how early this challenge was discovered... http://forums.evga.com/Something-weird-going-on-here-m2173941.aspx 

Afterburner
OK...
 
There is a difference in approach here Viper, not opinions.

1. I agree these items should be played with and we should encourage folks to try.
2. I do NOT agree that we should have member bragging about how they are smoking everyone that worked for YEARS, in a few weeks.
3. That has created a no less than five long term members to express to me their distaste and concern.
4. No one is saying this is going away soon, and THAT is the problem.
5. A similar situation happened with folding and they added Cryptocurrency. I mentioned this very early on in this thread, and it was not responded to. I think Mining should be added to that forum. 
6. Mining is so graphically different points wise and focus/agenda wise it has NO PLACE in Crunching in my personal opinion.

 
What should happen in these situations where it can cause this type of challenge is...

1. The Captains ask for folks to test it out for a month so the Captains can see if it would... 
   1. Cause any point skewing beyond what we already experience
   2. Helps humanity 
   3. What issues equipment wise that can come up
   4. Learn how many hours each WU runs
   5. What options of components works best
   6. All so when a thread is created to announce we are adding a project to the team folks are starting with both feet on the ground running.

 
This protects the team from this very type of situation. That did not happen, and we have a responsibility to bring that kind of thinking online and move forward. We cannot wait for others to fix this situation as even another day of mining will take a decade of regular work to overcome.
 
Fairness and what is the right thing to do for the team is the only focus and responsibility this thread is bringing to light.
 
I move that Mining be removed from Crunching@ EVGA until proper testing/research can be conducted. No less than 30 days of testing from 10 members. Then the Captains of this team can talk it out. They can bring it here and ask for help. What we cannot have is one Captain making the decision in a situation like this that has a far reaching impact on the team, and why there are multiple Captains.
 
Sometimes we have to work through bumps... This happens to be one. No individual has done anything close to wrong at this point. We do however, as Charter members, members and Captains, to raise our hands and say... "Hey, is this the right project for Crunching" or not.

I Second That Mining be removed from Crunching@ EVGA until proper testing/research can be conducted.

 

devlin85
Personally I think the stats just need to be separated, I don't think I've heard anybody disagree with that sentiment, now we just need to make the stats sites see it that way. According to that picture from free-dc on post http://forums.evga.com/Something-weird-going-on-here-m2173941.aspx the separation of stats is fairly new, so I'm sure if enough pressure is applied the other sites will adjust too. Thus ending the conflict for pretty much everybody 
 
And I do agree that "In fact... There it is simplified... Mining is not Crunching..."
 
Paying for a publication about mars colonization is about the outer limits in the realm of BOINC.. I guess it's science related and all but If they had it setup for every BOINC project, for operating costs/repairs, I think that would sway some people in favor, but only having milkyway@home right now.. not so much..

Thank you for your help!
 

bcavnaugh
I Second That Mining be removed from Crunching@ EVGA until proper testing/research can be conducted.

Thank you for your help!

I have no personal "dog in this hunt" other than that I care about the health of the team.  It is the extreme amount of points being awarded to at least this one Mining project (BU) that makes it a problem IMO.  Like Viper, I see "gray matter" in mining that can reach over and touch science-related work, or support science projects (like paying for Servers they use).  So for me, it is not a crunching vs mining thing.  It is mining projects that award unreasonably high points to BOINC and basically upset the balance of what we have known as normal User stats.  That pie-chart with BU Mining factored-in has been rendered useless and is uninteresting to view.  I don't know much about removing "mining" from "Crunching@EVGA" or what that really means (tangibly).  But I do feel that we should do whatever is needed to separate them at this point because the stats are so messed-up looking right now.

cuarc001
 
devlin85, If you check their forums, they are adding SETI and YoYo to the projects they support. Also, I have been in talks with POGS as well. Then you factor in that any project can request a campaign to be created here: http://www.bitcoinutopia.com/create/#.VHDaK8kl-PU
 
It is up to the project on whether to accept the aid. I was the one that suggested they reach out to Milkyway in the first place. I am also the one that tried to get QCN to accept funding for further development. However, QCN declined. Hopefully, that piece of information helps in your viewpoint.

Cool, that definitely affirms it's possibility to help all projects in the future and I hope one day they have pages of projects to contribute to. Seti definitely needs some help!
 
I'm a fan of the milkyway project so no complaints from me on that! 

texinga
I have no personal "dog in this hunt" other than that I care about the health of the team.  It is the extreme amount of points being awarded to at least this one Mining project (BU) that makes it a problem IMO.  Like Viper, I see "gray matter" in mining that can reach over and touch science-related work, or support science projects (like paying for Servers they use).  So for me, it is not a crunching vs mining thing.  It is mining projects that award unreasonably high points to BOINC and basically upset the balance of what we have known as normal User stats.  That pie-chart with BU Mining factored-in has been rendered useless and is uninteresting to view.  I don't know much about removing "mining" from "Crunching@EVGA" or what that really means (tangibly).  But I do feel that we should do whatever is needed to separate them at this point because the stats are so messed-up looking right now.

Thank you for your input!
 
That is very similar to what many of us have been saying in between the back and forth discussions. This is not about doing it or not doing it. It is how do we want this to impact or not impact the points/rankings. It is about we should try these out before adding or even taking away!
 
Is removing it a good idea? Man I have no idea. But I had to toss an idea out there to get us thinking. I love hearing multiple decisions. Even if that means we leave it as it  is before the discussion.
 
My heart is all about the team. Not to mine or not to mine. 
 
 

cuarc001

devlin85
 
 
Paying for a publication about mars colonization is about the outer limits in the realm of BOINC.. I guess it's science related and all but If they had it setup for every BOINC project, for operating costs/repairs, I think that would sway some people in favor, but only having milkyway@home right now.. not so much..

devlin85, If you check their forums, they are adding SETI and YoYo to the projects they support. Also, I have been in talks with POGS as well. Then you factor in that any project can request a campaign to be created here: http://www.bitcoinutopia.com/create/#.VHDaK8kl-PU
 
It is up to the project on whether to accept the aid. I was the one that suggested they reach out to Milkyway in the first place. I am also the one that tried to get QCN to accept funding for further development. However, QCN declined. Hopefully, that piece of information helps in your viewpoint.

Any idea as to how long it takes to go from idea to refusal or acceptance? This could get interesting!

Afterburner, I have no idea as far as submitting that form. I know that when I suggested Milkyway in the forums it was rather quick. Seti was suggested within the forums and it was added quick too. However, I think it comes down to how quick the project admins respond to each other.

Remember EVGA has not sanctioned it's use.  Therefore it's probably not a good idea BC.  Me, I'll stick my miner on Viper@ohtheheckwithit.  

Given that I was so far behind the 8-ball on this in the beginning, I'm finally starting to understand why people have suggested separating BOINC-mining off into some other "EVGA" team.  But that should be discussed and agreed upon by the team here before anyone does anything.  That way, it can be carefully considered (ala some of the concerns/experiences that Cuarc has shared with us). 
 
I'm not panicked about this thing and hope that I'm not contributing to same either.  I pay no attention to BOINC stats or count upon it to measure my Crunching progress.  But there are clearly those here (and I'm sure across other teams) that pay a lot of attention to those stats.  So, for them it is important.  Now, if someone tinkers with my WCG stats or my Snurk badge, then I'd have to "snatch them bald-headed".