Team Ninja Bulletin Board  

Go Back   Team Ninja Bulletin Board > DC Vault > DC Vault Projects

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10th November 2013, 01:07 AM
Coleslaw Coleslaw is offline
[H]ard|OCP
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: IL
Posts: 601
Should we revise the requirements for the Vault to include ongoing standards?

I know that in older posts it was mentioned that there wasn't a desire for strict rules for additions/requirements for the vault because it was supposed to be fun. However, there seems to be more headache getting in and then booted out than really necessary. For example, BETA projects are allowed even though the fact they are BETA means they may be riskier than other projects. We currently support RNA (a self proclaimed BETA project). Yet we have SETI but not SETI BETA. Not sure why. I don't even know if it has ever been brought up. I personally think there should be a standard such as the project can't be in Alpha or Beta state (at least by their own claims). Then we have issues with problem projects not really being much of a competition. For example: ABC does not have consistent work that allows for a fun fluent competition. It took me months to cache up all the work that was necessary just to hit my point goal. That isn't fun nor is it really a challenge worthy effort. So, projects that don't have continuous work for everyone should probably not be included. Correlizer has been removed once before and has not had work since around August. This can't be fun for anyone. Unless of course you are sitting in first place loving the Vault points you don't have to defend. SIMAP is off an on when it comes to continous work. RNA only has the long running work available most of the time. They are still testing their Virtualbox app which fixes many complaints, however it still is just too problematic for my taste as far as Vault goes. WCG is in the wrong category. It should be miscellaneous like YoYo. (6 of their past and present sub projects were not bio/medical) I mentioned this in another thread. I wasn't around these forums when any of these were discussed and as you know I spent months trying to make an account. I didn't want to put all of these comments in the forums as a blast or anything, but rather wanted someone officials feedback in regards to it.

I sent this same message to Rusty first, but he preferred that I bring it up in the forums. I would love more discussion on these topics because I think there are quite a few turned off by some of the headaches. Also, suggestions on how to improve the experience with the vault should also be suggested here even if they aren't included above or even disagree with the above statements.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 1st December 2013, 08:51 PM
DigiK-oz DigiK-oz is offline
Dutch Power Cows
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: netherlands
Posts: 156
Well, I think it is time for several cleanups in the vault. Several projects have serious issues. No work, or only intermittent batches (ABC, Correlizer, Lattice, ....). Then we have credit/stability issues (wildly varying credit which seems to hardly have any relation to the amount of work done (lattice), workunits with problems like elapsed time exceeded where units keep getting fed back to the users (lattice again)). Then there we have projects that certain teams simply don't want to support because the goal of the project is doubtfull, the project is very commercial etc. Heated discussions have taken place regarding projects like aqua, majestic, etc. Last but not least we have projects that meet all requirements, but IF issues appear, the admins don't seem to give a rats ass.

I would suggest starting the "cleanup"asap and doing this in several steps:

- Remove projects with no or only intermittent work (projects to be suggested/discussed here?)
- Come up with different/extra rules for inclusion (and thus exclusion) like credit stability, admin responsiveness, ....
- Figure out a way to allow teams to NOT run certain projects without jeopardizing their vault position. I have suggested a possible solution before, namely having the vault ranking for a team be decided by all but the worst 5 (or 3 or ....) projects point-wise. That way, teams can ignore projects they simply do not want to participate in.
- If a new project is suggested, its inclusion should not be decided by a poll, but simply by verifying its compliance to the revised rules, and having the vault test-team (suggested by Rusty somewhere else) run it for a certain amount of time to see if any issues come up. For exclusion the same holds true, just verify non-compliance and kick it.

Regards,
DigiK-oz
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 3rd December 2013, 12:30 PM
DigiK-oz DigiK-oz is offline
Dutch Power Cows
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: netherlands
Posts: 156
O, and maybe move this thread to the "problems and suggestions" part of the vault-forum, it'll probably get more exposure there.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 5th December 2013, 01:25 PM
Coleslaw Coleslaw is offline
[H]ard|OCP
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: IL
Posts: 601
I agree to some extent on the participation thing. However, part of being ranked within the Vault is to accept the ongoing challenge that it is. If you choose not to support some parts of it, then you choose to not compete. Your ranking should reflect that. However, what I have heard from a team member or two is that they don't think that all projects should be weighted the same. I don't share that opinion because who am I to judge what science is truly more worthy. The example was made that they felt #1 in FAH should not be equal to #1 in a poorly ran project or a project that has no work like Correlizer. One of the sales pitches of the Vault to projects is driving more processing power their way. This implies that either resources are being diverted to begin with from that project or people will contribute for reasons other than their cause. I contribute to about all of the BOINC projects, so I don't fit the second option. Since my team does pushes each month, I can attest that the Vault highly influences where my resources go. I still support non-Vault projects, but my resources are certainly adjusted differently because of it.

I think if the admins put down better rules for the project, there would be justification for action. Right now the lack of rules allows for things to stagnate. The purpose of the Vault was to be fun, but stagnation is far from that. Things need fixed and adjusted in a timely manner. It shouldn't take months but rather a few days. Weeks if it is a big decision, but certainly not months.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.