Perhaps here is a DC Vault Inclusion/Exclusion Ruleing?

[Da-Grizz]

How about it Russty , for all of the new members who cannee find it ? :)

[fractal]

Are you looking for more than is in the faq (http://www.team-ninja.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=36977)?

[Da-Grizz]

Just so .
Everyone read.

Regds Da-Grizz

[Da-Grizz]

Just so .
Everyone read the FAQ (see above or below)

Regds Da-Grizz

http://www.team-ninja.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=36977

[russkris]

OK... Lets have a quite chat about the FAQ..

I do not want to get into wrappers and things like that.

What could be improved?

[Beyond (Ars)]

How about something like: "Must not charge a fee for participation." Also, any feelings about for profit projects? I'm not sure that many people would want to participate in a project that is padding someone's pocketbook. I wouldn't.

[russkris]

How about something like: "Must not charge a fee for participation." Also, any feelings about for profit projects? I'm not sure that many people would want to participate in a project that is padding someone's pocketbook. I wouldn't.

Yeah I like the Fee idea.. What project make you pay to take part?

[The Shadow]

Some projects in the Vault (at least 3) do NOT accept new membership , or at best default to a BOINC interprtation of it (meaning new teams cannot compete in the Vaulted project - worthy projects though they may be).
Some have been inactive for over 2 months (and more) .
How about a general concensusss that if a project does not produce work and fail to answer e-mail enq's after (say) 3 months , they are put to the poll to stay/remove ?
I realise that this could lead to Stats" manipulation by "Lower" teams in a project to vote for removal , but we are above that arn't we .

Just a thought .

Shads .

[StoneGnome]

I'm a bit concerned about setting fixed time limits.

There have a been a few projects in the past that have only lasted long enough for a student to complete their university thesis, only to loose interest in the project 6 months down the line.

Then there are the more long term projects like LHC, which went for months and months without sending out a single work unit. But you can't build a new LHC in 3 months can you? An extreme example perhaps, but it does show the difference in the size and type of project that are out there.

We're now in a similar situation with Predictor@Home, there’s been considerable investment made by the project organisers, new equipment brought, moves to new premises etc. Now they need to replace the staff that they have lost to get the project up and running again.

How long should we wait before dumping a project?
I think we should judge each project on its merit.

I know it can be frustrating when you’re not getting any work from a project, but some of these projects work over very large time scales and we should take that into account.

We also ought to take into account that some these projects take a considerable amount of time/input from the project administrators, and they aren’t all paid staff some of them have day jobs too.

It’s very easy for us to connect out clients to these projects and compete in vault trying to out perform everyone else, but to create and maintain the other end of a project is a time consuming an probably extremely expensive task and I don’t believe we should be so quick to abandon them because they’re having short term problems.

IMHO

[The Shadow]

I'm a bit concerned about setting fixed time limits.

There have a been a few projects in the past that have only lasted long enough for a student to complete their university thesis, only to loose interest in the project 6 months down the line.

Then there are the more long term projects like LHC, which went for months and months without sending out a single work unit. But you can't build a new LHC in 3 months can you? An extreme example perhaps, but it does show the difference in the size and type of project that are out there.

We're now in a similar situation with Predictor@Home, there’s been considerable investment made by the project organisers, new equipment brought, moves to new premises etc. Now they need to replace the staff that they have lost to get the project up and running again.

How long should we wait before dumping a project?
I think we should judge each project on its merit.

I know it can be frustrating when you’re not getting any work from a project, but some of these projects work over very large time scales and we should take that into account.

We also ought to take into account that some these projects take a considerable amount of time/input from the project administrators, and they aren’t all paid staff some of them have day jobs too.

It’s very easy for us to connect out clients to these projects and compete in vault trying to out perform everyone else, but to create and maintain the other end of a project is a time consuming an probably extremely expensive task and I don’t believe we should be so quick to abandon them because they’re having short term problems.

IMHO

Well said The S Gnome

Shads .

[umccullough]

I'm a bit concerned about setting fixed time limits.

<snip>

How long should we wait before dumping a project?
I think we should judge each project on its merit.


Perhaps it should be a sliding scale - with an initial grace period for new projects.

For example, say a new project has a grace period of 1 month of "inactivity" before it gets removed.

But once a project has been around for 1 year, it gets an extra month of grace period for removal.

Thus, a 5-year old project would have 6 months grace period before it's up for dismissal if it "disappeared off the map".

This could also benefit situations where a project announces that it is leaving for good. It would give the teams that put a lot of focus on that project a chance to ramp up their production on other, newer projects during the "grace period" before the stats are removed and all the teams shift around again.

I dunno, something like that might work :)

[KAMCOBILL]

I agree with not being hasty about removing a project. There are several projects that has been removed from the Vault that are still up and running with a lot of work and are open to everyone.

As for a time limt for projects, there is not a workable way to give a time limit. For example Predictor @ Home which has been running for years, which, also, means that most everybody has years to run it. Maybe, some didn't want to run it for years and some did. Now there isn't any work, once before there wasn't any work, there will be work again. If there isn't any work now, there isn't any work for everyone so what is the problem of it being in the Vault? It is equal for all.

As for a project being down and unreachable, I haven't seen a projects yet that hasn't been down for one reason or another and hasn't had any work. Most project give news of going to be down and/or not work and time to expect them to be back up. Of course the ones that crash aren't able to do so. Maybe there should be a time limit established for those?

It seems like the team that are at the top want to keep them and teams at the bottom want to remove them. So a Pole/Vote wouldn't really be a fare way/sensible way to remove a project. The best way to remove them would be to use the Guidelines for removing a project.

The ultimaate answer may be to add new projects (using the add project guidelines of course). This would create much more competativeness than removing projects. There are plenty of good/worthy projects out there. I'm attached to 110 BOINC and 27 Non-Boinc Projects (of course, not all are good/worthy:D), 43 out of 137 are in the Vault.

I guess you can't please everyone. Huh?

[opyrt]

Reading this thread make me feel that some have the opinion that once a project is removed, it can never re-enter the vault...
I'm thinking that inactive projects should be removed, and when they become active, just re-add them. They've already gone through the screening process of being added to the vault, and all the scripts to parse stats are already written, so it should be a simple job re-adding them.

It is very frustrating having no chance of climbing the ranks because the project that you need to improve your score in is inactive. :(

[fractal]

I agree with opyrt. And, I come from the team that is currently #1 so gains by having old stale projects in the vault.

I think the criterion for readmission should be lower than the criterion for initial. But, if the project does not have work for more than 2-3 months, it should be removed. Exceptions could and perhaps should be made for projects with a history of intermittent work.

But, a project that is struggling does NOT need the extra concern of "loosing their spot in the vault". They should know that they are welcome back as soon as they get going again. But, any inactive project should get delisted after some defined period of time. That period could be sliding as proposed, or simply a fixed number for established projects and a second, shorter, fixed number for projects "on probation" ... i.e. new.

[umccullough]

Reading this thread make me feel that some have the opinion that once a project is removed, it can never re-enter the vault...
I'm thinking that inactive projects should be removed, and when they become active, just re-add them. They've already gone through the screening process of being added to the vault, and all the scripts to parse stats are already written, so it should be a simple job re-adding them.

It is very frustrating having no chance of climbing the ranks because the project that you need to improve your score in is inactive. :(

I think the problem with hastily removing them, and then re-adding them later when they have work again, is that the vault rankings will shift around drastically for no real good reason. Not to mention it's busy work for those who have to manage the projects ;)

This is why I suggested the "sliding grace period" - it would give the larger, longer projects more time to get their act together so that vault participants don't have to get annoyed and frustrated when they lose all their points on a project that they've spent years working on.

As a member of a relatively newer team that used to be in the same situation, I can definitely understand the frustration of having no points on a project in the vault, and no immediate way to gain them.

In any case, I don't have a lot of bias either way, but I definitely think some rules should be nailed down to prevent these discussions from recurring all the time.

- Urias

[The Shadow]

Just a question(s) then --- Why is a project removed from the Vault ?
Is it because they no longer work ?
Is it because there is not enough "Disk" space on the "Vault" server to allow room to show all "Vaulted" projects ?
Is it to keep everyone in the Vault happy ?
Is it because they (the projects) are finished ?
Is there a time scale for a project to be active ?
Is there a time scale for a project atall ?
Is it to promote competition in projects ?

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

Shads

[KAMCOBILL]

We have only been in the Vault for about 3 years. During this period I haven't seen any projects removed and re-added. Once removed they seem to be gone forever. I've seen projects removed while giving out plenty of work and still running after being removed for at least 2 years. Yet there are projects that haven't had work for over 3 months or more and still in the Vault.

There doesn't seem to be any really set rules for adding or removing projects other than Vote and/or Popularity.

It doesn't matter what projects are in the vault, the teams will be in about the same positions. The small teams and most teams running all the projects are going to be low in standings and the big team and teams running only the 43 projects will be high in standings.

Besides, isn't it just for fun and entertainment? :D

[umccullough]

During this period I haven't seen any projects removed and re-added. Once removed they seem to be gone forever.

Offhand, I can only think of one myself: LHC

LHC did disappear from the vault due to inactivity/no work, and when they started producing again, they were re-added :)

[russkris]

Any Project can can back, we deactivate them not remove them....

As for why a project is removed

Project eligibility is governed by the following guidelines:

The project must:

be active
accept new members and teams immediately upon registration
have parsable team stats
have team stats that are updated regularly
provide a client program which runs on a local PC The project must not:
[LIST]
be a keylogger or mouseclick counter
have a maximum number of teams or members or exclude any country

[The Shadow]

Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by KAMCOBILL http://www.team-ninja.com/vbulletin/images/buttons/dcvault/viewpost.gif (http://www.team-ninja.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=355116#post355116)
During this period I haven't seen any projects removed and re-added. Once removed they seem to be gone forever.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Offhand, I can only think of one myself: LHC

LHC did disappear from the vault due to inactivity/no work, and when they started producing again, they were re-added :)

================================================== =======


MoneyBee , In-Out-In-Out

But did follow this added rule :

The project must not:
[list] be a keylogger or mouseclick counter have a maximum number of teams or members Or exclude any country :confused::confused: Ask the guys in China use'in Google


Shads .