Sponsored by:
Join PrimeGrid
Returning Participants
Community
Leader Boards
Results
Other
drummers-lowrise
|
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Proposed badge level adjustment
| Author |
Message |
|---|
Michael Goetz Volunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8047
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,741,973
RAC: 63,064
                  
|
|
As you know, badges for subprojects are awarded at certain levels. There's one set of thresholds for LLR projects, and another for everything else.
I had to ask Rytis about the origin of the level difference because it predates my involvement with PrimeGrid. Originally, the sieves had higher thresholds because they had 64 bit apps and LLR was 32 bits, so you needed more credit to get badges with the faster 64 bit sieve projects. Since badges and credit are incentives to crunch, it's desirable to not run out of new badges to achieve. It used to be that getting gold was analogous to completing the game. It made sense for projects that accumulated credit faster to have a higher "finish line".
AP26 and GFN were presumably put into the "high" category because they had GPU apps, and were also faster.
That's history. In today's world, we've got 64 bit apps for everything, and the big difference is AVX rather than 64 bits. Furthermore, GPUS, not CPU architecture, provides for the real difference in speed.
Finally, we have a lot more badge levels than the original bronze, silver, and gold. Nobody is likely to max out the badges any time soon, no matter how much hardware they have, or how fast it is.
The differing badge levels no longer accurately represent the difference in speed between projects. While it might make sense for PPS-Sieve to have a higher badge level because of its efficient GPU app, it makes no sense for TRP-Sieve to also be at the same level. Worse yet, as apps come and go, the differences in speed are going to change over and over again.
My opinion is that all the projects should have the same requirements for each badge. I'm thinking of lowering the levels for PPS-Sieve, TRP-Sieve, and GFN to the same levels as LLR.
The levels for AP26 and the other (suspended) sieves would also retroactively be lowered. In some cases, this would mean that you might go up one badge in one of the old projects, but not in all cases. Undoubtedly there's also some people with between 10K and 20K credits in one of the old projects who would therefore retroactively be granted a bronze badge. (It is not out of the question that one or more of the sieves might be restarted at some point.)
I think this would be a better system moving forward. What do you think?
____________
My lucky number is 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! | |
|
 1998golferVolunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 4 Dec 12
Posts: 905
ID: 183129
Credit: 498,770,520
RAC: 2,678,856
              
|
|
Lowering the levels to the same would be good, would you do the same for PSA?
____________
275*2^3585539+1 is prime!!! (1079358 digits)
 Proud member of Aggie the Pew
 | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8047
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,741,973
RAC: 63,064
|
Lowering the levels to the same would be good, would you do the same for PSA?
Yeah, I forgot PSA. Yes, all badge levels would be the same, including PSA.
____________
My lucky number is 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! | |
|
DirkSend message
Joined: 10 Mar 10
Posts: 354
ID: 56675
Credit: 443,469,006
RAC: 2,512,789
               
|
|
An interesting explanation. In my ignorance, I always thought that we got more credits for Sieves to compensate for the fact that with Sieves you can't find primes (the ultimate reward for crunching at PrimeGrid). So with Sieves the reward was higher credit rate. And since we got more credit, badge levels were higher. That made sense to me, but now it seems none of it is true.
In that case, I'm all for equalising badge requirements, including PSA. Unless there is some reason not to include PSA; I can't imagine Michael just "forgetting" PSA. (edit: I typed this at the same time Michael was typing his reply...) | |
|
|
|
|
Would be easier to calculate and remember the badge levels with a single set of rules. I like the idea and welcome it.
| |
|
|
|
|
TheDawgz take no issue with the proposed change ... all the badges are shades of gray to us anyway <g>
____________
TheDawgz are Proud Members of Aggie The Pew!
There's someone in our head but it's not us. | |
|
HonzaVolunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 15 Aug 05
Posts: 1555
ID: 352
Credit: 1,433,472,658
RAC: 696,973
                
|
It made sense for projects that accumulated credit faster to have a higher "finish line".
AP26 and GFN were presumably put into the "high" category because they had GPU apps, and were also faster.
That's history. In today's world...
Yes, historically that was the case. Back in times when no GPU apps were available and CPU sieve was giving more credit per hour then CPU LLR.
Badge levels for LLR and sieves were similarly difficult to archieve in terms of computing time needed.
Since we haven't adjusted badge levels for example when GFN GPU came, it looks convenient to have one set of thresholds for all subprojects.
Personally, I don't mind either way - stick to the history (being an old-timer) or go the new way.
____________
My stats
Badge score: 1*1 + 2*1 + 5*2 + 7*6 + 8*5 + 9*1 + 10*1 + 12*2 = 138 | |
|
|
|
|
I'm fine with this. Everything you stated in your first post definitely rings true.
____________
 | |
|
Scott BrownVolunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 17 Oct 05
Posts: 1494
ID: 1178
Credit: 3,371,090,428
RAC: 2,475,745
                    
|
|
The old conditions have definitely changed greatly since I started here (Whoa!...have I really been at this for almost nine years?). In any case, the circumstances that led to a tiered badge system given the old LLR credit system (which often penalized faster machines by using the default BOINC crediting system) and higher credit CPU sieves no longer applies. As such, the current system definitely disadvantages the TRP sieve (and much of PSA) considerably.
Thus, I am all for the change.
| |
|
|
|
|
After reading through the what Michael and others have posted so far, I am in agreement that a change is now due for these categories to bring them in alignment with the other badge awards.
____________
 | |
|
|
|
|
+1 for the change | |
|
NeoMetal*Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Mar 11
Posts: 374
ID: 92179
Credit: 1,358,758,017
RAC: 753,232
         
|
|
I'm all for this change.
Another thing that should be readdressed is the UNeven steps in the credit needed for each progression in badges. I think a more linear progression once 1,000,000 is passed makes more sense as well. I know, Mike, this was discussed back when new badges were added awhile back but I think you need to revisit this. Anyone elses thoughts on this issue?
____________
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin | |
|
|
|
|
Sounds great! Bring it on. | |
|
DaveSend message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 1492
ID: 130544
Credit: 450,873,296
RAC: 179,400
   
|
|
Yes it sounds simpler to have 1 level for sieve + LLR. Makes it easier to try & explain to people as well.
As long as it doesn't bugger up my spreadsheet... ;) | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8047
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,741,973
RAC: 63,064
|
Yes it sounds simpler to have 1 level for sieve + LLR. Makes it easier to try & explain to people as well.
As long as it doesn't bugger up my spreadsheet... ;)
Spreadsheet buggery is virtually guaranteed, I'm afraid. :)
____________
My lucky number is 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8047
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,741,973
RAC: 63,064
|
Another thing that should be readdressed is the UNeven steps in the credit needed for each progression in badges. I think a more linear progression once 1,000,000 is passed makes more sense as well. I know, Mike, this was discussed back when new badges were added awhile back but I think you need to revisit this. Anyone elses thoughts on this issue?
Just to be clear, you want the progression to be more linear and less exponential, correct?
I currently have it set up so every 3 levels increases the required credit by a factor of 10. That's intentional to allow for future growth in both the number of machines/cores available as well as the speed of individual cores or GPUs. While 50 billion credits seems like a lot, there's already some people with a few billion credits.
20 and 50 billion might seem out of reach right now, but 5 and 10 billion certainly don't. If the sieve levels are lowered, 50 billion would be the highest badge. I see the 20 and 50 billion levels as future headroom allowing for growth so we don't have to add more badges for a while.
If you have a better idea, I'm listening.
____________
My lucky number is 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! | |
|
DaveSend message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 1492
ID: 130544
Credit: 450,873,296
RAC: 179,400
|
|
Think the highest badge currently attained by anyone is a double ruby isn't it, which means to hit double emerald they'd have to do (at most) 25 times as much processing as they've already done. | |
|
|
|
|
I suggest lowering bronze to 1 credit or so (meaning that anyone with at least one WU done in a given subproject would get it). It would help newcomers (and some old ones too) to try every different subproject.
Other than that, I agree with the proposal in the first post and I don't think that the LLR thresholds for the other badges should be changed.
____________
676754^262144+1 is prime | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8047
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,741,973
RAC: 63,064
|
I suggest lowering bronze to 1 credit or so (meaning that anyone with at least one WU done in a given subproject would get it). It would help newcomers (and some old ones too) to try every different subproject.
Other than that, I agree with the proposal in the first post and I don't think that the LLR thresholds for the other badges should be changed.
A similar idea has come up in the past, and the reaction then was "we shouldn't have a badge merely for participating."
I think that sentiment is still valid, and probably more so now than in the past. Back then, 10,000 credits was a fair amount of crunching. Today, many computers can do that easily in single day on the CPU, and much more than that on a GPU. Four of the projects (SoB, PSP-LLR, GFN-Short, GFN-WR) grant 10,000 or more credits for a single task. If anything, I think an argument could be made for the bronze badge being too low rather than too high. (No, I'm not considering raising it.)
____________
My lucky number is 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! | |
|
NeoMetal*Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Mar 11
Posts: 374
ID: 92179
Credit: 1,358,758,017
RAC: 753,232
|
Another thing that should be readdressed is the UNeven steps in the credit needed for each progression in badges. I think a more linear progression once 1,000,000 is passed makes more sense as well. I know, Mike, this was discussed back when new badges were added awhile back but I think you need to revisit this. Anyone elses thoughts on this issue?
Just to be clear, you want the progression to be more linear and less exponential, correct?
I currently have it set up so every 3 levels increases the required credit by a factor of 10. That's intentional to allow for future growth in both the number of machines/cores available as well as the speed of individual cores or GPUs. While 50 billion credits seems like a lot, there's already some people with a few billion credits.
20 and 50 billion might seem out of reach right now, but 5 and 10 billion certainly don't. If the sieve levels are lowered, 50 billion would be the highest badge. I see the 20 and 50 billion levels as future headroom allowing for growth so we don't have to add more badges for a while.
If you have a better idea, I'm listening.
A simple doubling starting from 1M (i.e. 1-2-4-8-16-32M etc.) instead of the current 1-2-5-10-20-50M where you need that extra credit to achieve every 3rd badge.
____________
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin | |
|
DaveSend message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 1492
ID: 130544
Credit: 450,873,296
RAC: 179,400
|
A simple doubling starting from 1M (i.e. 1-2-4-8-16-32M etc.) instead of the current 1-2-5-10-20-50M where you need that extra credit to achieve every 3rd badge.
Nice to stick to 2^n scale but you drift further & further away from nice powers of 10.
Talking of powers of 2 I've just had a 6 hour game on 2048 on Twitchplayswebgames... | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8047
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,741,973
RAC: 63,064
|
A simple doubling starting from 1M (i.e. 1-2-4-8-16-32M etc.) instead of the current 1-2-5-10-20-50M where you need that extra credit to achieve every 3rd badge.
badge current NeoMetal*
bronze 10,000 10,000
silver 100,000 100,000
gold 500,000 500,000
amethyst 1,000,000 1,000,000
ruby 2,000,000 2,000,000
turquoise 5,000,000 4,000,000
jade 10,000,000 8,000,000
sapphire 20,000,000 16,000,000
emerald 50,000,000 32,000,000
double bronze 100,000,000 64,000,000
double silver 200,000,000 128,000,000
double gold 500,000,000 256,000,000
double amethyst 1,000,000,000 512,000,000
double ruby 2,000,000,000 1,024,000,000
double turquoise 5,000,000,000 2,048,000,000
double jade 10,000,000,000 4,096,000,000
double sapphire 20,000,000,000 8,192,000,000
double emerald 50,000,000,000 16,384,000,000
Those are the two options. The old numbers seem to be easier to remember. NeoMetal's suggestion increases more smoothly.
NeoMetal*'s suggestion awards badges at lower levels, which is both good and bad. On the one hand, badges are easier to attain, which makes it more fun. On the other hand, People will run out of goals/badges years sooner, which would necessitate yet another change to the system.
I'm not sure I've ever seen any badge system or milestone system that worked in binary. We're taught to think in base 10, and it's more natural to most people. If we change from increasing by a factor of 10 every three levels to a factor of 8 every three levels, I think it will be more confusing for a lot of people.
I was originally inclined to essentially put this up to a vote and see what everyone preferred, but the more I think about it, the more it seems this will cause more problems than it will solve (I tend to think of things in terms of "how frequently is someone going to have to answer questions about this on the forums?") However, while I'm not thrilled with this idea, if there's overwhelming support for it, I'll reconsider.
So what does everyone think?
____________
My lucky number is 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! | |
|
|
|
|
I kind of like Neo's method. As for running out of badges, you have laid a great base already and just need to add more levels as needed. We have squares and shields so now add stars or circles or some other shape keeping the colors intact.
Post a note with all levels, lock it and sticky it. Plus we also now have the wonderful pending credits to review at will on the the badge link which also shows the next level.
My 2 cents. | |
|
Keith
Send message
Joined: 8 Dec 13
Posts: 117
ID: 284516
Credit: 100,134,442
RAC: 220,010
   
|
We have squares and shields so now add stars or circles or some other shape keeping the colors intact.
But would anyone want to move beyond all gold stars?
In the binary counting the higher badge levels do become much easier to attain. Adding more and more levels to compensate will lessen the importance and sense of accomplishment that each level brings.
There must be a way to have a smoother transition on a base 10 counting system without doing just a straight jump to the next factor of 10 as that would make double emerald need 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 credits...seems a little silly.
At the end of the day I think keeping the current achievement levels is fine and changing it can be re-examined as people start achieving double emerald.
As for the thresholds for LLR vs Sieve... To me it initially made sense to have different thresholds because GPUs running sieve projects can rack up credits significantly faster than a CPU running LLR tasks can. I wouldn't think we'd want people hitting the end of the badges too quickly. However, that left TRP sieve as a bit of a confusing one since it is a CPU only project but follows the scoring of GPU based projects.
After reading this thread I know my interpretation of what I observed was, shall we say, a little off.
Flattening the scale for consistency is fine. Leaving it as it is for PPS sieve and GFN, but moving TRP sieve to a flat scale is also fine. | |
|
|
|
|
You should also consider the users expectation of badge Levels - what are thy used from other Projects like yoyo, Asteroids, NumberFields, NFS and so on.
I'm always a bit confused on as there it's not the common 10k, 100k, 500k, 1M steps - they have an additional 50k silve badge and the higher Levels are then also not the colour one is used to.
Thus my personal vote: stay with the current steps on LLR.
(Lowering sieve requirements would result in three higher Level bagdes for me, but why change the rules during the race? I don't see the huge benefit.)
____________
 | |
|
DaveSend message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 1492
ID: 130544
Credit: 450,873,296
RAC: 179,400
|
|
I too am happy with the current levels for LLR. | |
|
|
|
|
I like the idea of moving to one set of badge levels. There were reasons it made sense at the time but as has been stated most of those reasons don't exist anymore and having one set of levels would remove some user confusion.
I would also keep the current badge steps. While the progression steps are not consistent within each three levels you have the nice clean power of 10 increase between any 3 levels which people can understand/see easier than an 8 times increase.
____________
 | |
|
|
|
|
I agree with the change concerning the badge level adjustment LLR <-> Sieve;
concerning the badge level adjustment to a more linear and less expotential increase I suggest to have this topic discussed in / moved to a seperate thread.
(i.e. make small simple steps towards change)
____________
| |
|
|
|
|
In my opinion keep the current levels, just make them the same (LLR style) all the way across. The quicker badge thresholds just make it feel like your just giving in to allowing people to badge up a lot quicker. Those steps every 3rd is the "hump" that you need to get over and is kind of a nice idea. There are some projects that badges are starting to feel worthless because they keep adding tons of new ones every few weeks and then you have so many you are unsure what they are or why.
| |
|
|
|
|
Keep the LLR badge levels as they are.
Sieve/GFN/PSA: no strong opinion. Consistency/simplicity is generally good, but given that the credit per hour is generally far higher on those (due to GPU power, mostly) maybe higher thresholds are warranted. I like to think of the badges as an indicator of the level of personal commitment, not just raw crunching power; we already have the credit score for that. I realize others may disagree and that's fine; just my view.
Cheers,
--Gary | |
|
NeoMetal*Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Mar 11
Posts: 374
ID: 92179
Credit: 1,358,758,017
RAC: 753,232
|
|
It seems the consensus is heading for sieves and LLR to be aligned while keeping the badge credit levels at the current LLR levels.
I do have one last suggestion though. What about changing only 1 of each group of 3 badges to at least smooth out the steps a little to 1-2.5-5-10-25-50-100-250-500M etc. We keep the base 10 progression for the most part and lessens the difference in every 3rd step jump. I do realize that some may actually drop a badge level initially if caught at the right (wrong?) credit level if this change would happen, but thereafter it be more fair and sensible.
____________
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin | |
|
axnVolunteer developer
Send message
Joined: 29 Dec 07
Posts: 224
ID: 16874
Credit: 8,653,382
RAC: 0
         
|
|
For me, the 1,2,5 progression is more intuitive. I do, however, have a more radical suggestion regarding the color assignment to the levels.
For me, color is a more indicative factor in level progression than shape. Hence double bronze is logically a progression from bronze than from a previous color. With that, I'd like to propose the following color assignments.
..........single..double..triple
bronze......10k.....20k......50k
silver.....100k....200k.....500k
gold.........1m......2m.......5m
amethyst....10m.....20m......50m
ruby.......100m....200m.....500m
turquoise....1b......2b.......5b
jade........10b.....20b......50b
sapphire...100b....200b.....500b
emerald......1t......2t.......5t
Each order-of-magnitude is covered by one color. Within a color, the shape indicates progression. Shapes could be square, circle, shield (or some such). Note that using the current colors, you can go up to a ridiculous 10 trillion points. It also adds some missing levels at the lower end without needing new colors.
Anyways, something to think about... | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8047
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,741,973
RAC: 63,064
|
I do realize that some may actually drop a badge level initially if caught at the right (wrong?) credit level if this change would happen, but thereafter it be more fair and sensible.
Anything that raises badge levels will tend to upset people who lose a badge level. This will be far worse when that badge is in a project that's no longer running. For that reason, this can't be done. I'm allergic to angry mobs with pitchforks. :)
____________
My lucky number is 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8047
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,741,973
RAC: 63,064
|
For me, the 1,2,5 progression is more intuitive. I do, however, have a more radical suggestion regarding the color assignment to the levels.
For me, color is a more indicative factor in level progression than shape. Hence double bronze is logically a progression from bronze than from a previous color. With that, I'd like to propose the following color assignments.
..........single..double..triple
bronze......10k.....20k......50k
silver.....100k....200k.....500k
gold.........1m......2m.......5m
amethyst....10m.....20m......50m
ruby.......100m....200m.....500m
turquoise....1b......2b.......5b
jade........10b.....20b......50b
sapphire...100b....200b.....500b
emerald......1t......2t.......5t
Each order-of-magnitude is covered by one color. Within a color, the shape indicates progression. Shapes could be square, circle, shield (or some such). Note that using the current colors, you can go up to a ridiculous 10 trillion points. It also adds some missing levels at the lower end without needing new colors.
Anyways, something to think about...
Interesting. As always, I'd like to hear what people think of this.
____________
My lucky number is 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! | |
|
|
|
Interesting. As always, I'd like to hear what people think of this.
I don't like it because it would mean that some people would drop down a level (color). Most of my amethyst badges would revert to gold under the system, a lot of people's golds will revert to silver, etc.
____________
| |
|
|
|
Interesting. As always, I'd like to hear what people think of this.
I don't like it because it would mean that some people would drop down a level (color). Most of my amethyst badges would revert to gold under the system, a lot of people's golds will revert to silver, etc.
Not if they 'grandfathered' you. That's what they do in companies when they make changes, the existing people get 'grandfathered' into their existing position/pay/whatever until they get to the next level in the new system. All the new people must do things the new way.
I too kind of like the newest chart in Axn's post. When you progress thru Bronze you move into the Silver ones, after you progress thru those you move into the Gold etc. I think this will give people an incentive to move upwards, but also reward them along their path thru the different colors. Those of us who are at least slightly color blind would appreciate the different designs too.
Adding stones at the bottom of the chart, Diamond for example, would give you 10t, 20t and 30t goals which are WAAAY beyond any current cruncher, but perhaps not beyond future crunchers. People are putting 4 LARGE capacity gpu's in their machines now, who knows how far they can go eventually. What if some of the bitcoin folks came over, some of those MULTI gpu machines could crank out some credits.
I personally do not care for the logical mathematical progression of 2, 4, 6, 8 etc as that is not how most people think. I UNDERSTAND it, but think the base 10 ideas are better.
As for combining all the sub projects into a single credit system, that makes ALOT of sense to me. The reason for having different ones is no longer valid, as explained earlier, and would make for fewer questions from those earning the different badges. ie why do I get a badge after 10 credits of this kind but I need to get 100 of those credits to get the same badge?
Oh and those of us who are at least slightly color blind would appreciate the different designs too. | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8047
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,741,973
RAC: 63,064
|
Not if they 'grandfathered' you. That's what they do in companies when they make changes, the existing people get 'grandfathered' into their existing position/pay/whatever until they get to the next level in the new system. All the new people must do things the new way.
Unfortunately, grandfathering isn't an option. It adds a lot of unnecessary complexity to the system, and creates all sort of issues going forward about why some people have badges at different levels than others.
Oh and those of us who are at least slightly color blind would appreciate the different designs too.
Different designs definitely require help. The current "double color" design, if you remember, was the result of about a month's effort. We're extremely challenged artistically, I'm afraid.
____________
My lucky number is 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! | |
|
|
|
After reading through the what Michael and others have posted so far, I am in agreement that a change is now due for these categories to bring them in alignment with the other badge awards.
I second that. | |
|
tng*Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 10
Posts: 178
ID: 66603
Credit: 4,609,506,014
RAC: 36,431,198
         
|
After reading through the what Michael and others have posted so far, I am in agreement that a change is now due for these categories to bring them in alignment with the other badge awards.
I second that.
Concur. Do it.
____________
 | |
|
|
|
Not if they 'grandfathered' you. That's what they do in companies when they make changes, the existing people get 'grandfathered' into their existing position/pay/whatever until they get to the next level in the new system. All the new people must do things the new way.
Unfortunately, grandfathering isn't an option. It adds a lot of unnecessary complexity to the system, and creates all sort of issues going forward about why some people have badges at different levels than others.
That makes sense.
Oh and those of us who are at least slightly color blind would appreciate the different designs too.
Different designs definitely require help. The current "double color" design, if you remember, was the result of about a month's effort. We're extremely challenged artistically, I'm afraid.
I am pretty sure that there are plenty of people here who would love to help if you just asked. Look how many people chimed in on this small question alone. Maybe even some local university art student could help you out. Get with them or their professor and design the future of the PG badges. | |
|
Crun-chiVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 09
Posts: 1862
ID: 50683
Credit: 26,741,344
RAC: 41,391
     
|
|
Maybe, just maybe it will be better if badges are little bigger. Then we can put kind of logo, part of logo..... etc etc...
____________
9 *10^1009567-1 REPDIGIT MEGA PRIME :) :) :)
57*2^3339932-1 MEGA PRIME :)
4 *737^269302+1 GENERALIZED FERMAT :)
Proud member of team Aggie The Pew. Go Aggie! | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8047
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,741,973
RAC: 63,064
|
Maybe, just maybe it will be better if badges are little bigger. Then we can put kind of logo, part of logo..... etc etc...
I could do bigger, but I'd certainly like something a bit nicer than merely changing a 16x16 gold colored square into 20x20 gold colored square. Bigger would be the means to the end, i.e., a necessary step to having a nicer badge design.
____________
My lucky number is 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! | |
|
|
|
Maybe, just maybe it will be better if badges are little bigger. Then we can put kind of logo, part of logo..... etc etc...
I could do bigger, but I'd certainly like something a bit nicer than merely changing a 16x16 gold colored square into 20x20 gold colored square. Bigger would be the means to the end, i.e., a necessary step to having a nicer badge design.
Printing something on them would eliminate the color blind problem, we can always buy stronger glasses. ;-)) | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8047
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,741,973
RAC: 63,064
|
|
Jim and I just made the level change, and all badges now use the LLR levels.
Thanks for all the thoughtful comments about the idea, and especially thanks for all the other badge ideas. Don't stop; keep them coming!
____________
My lucky number is 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! | |
|
1998golferVolunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 4 Dec 12
Posts: 905
ID: 183129
Credit: 498,770,520
RAC: 2,678,856
|
Jim and I just made the level change, and all badges now use the LLR levels.
Thanks for all the thoughtful comments about the idea, and especially thanks for all the other badge ideas. Don't stop; keep them coming!
Great! Thank's mike and jim.
Now my PSA is next level, but I still need 7 million to get it to the next badge after this. I like the sapphire color a lot better than the Jade ;)
____________
275*2^3585539+1 is prime!!! (1079358 digits)
Proud member of Aggie the Pew
| |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8047
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,741,973
RAC: 63,064
|
Jim and I just made the level change, and all badges now use the LLR levels.
Thanks for all the thoughtful comments about the idea, and especially thanks for all the other badge ideas. Don't stop; keep them coming!
Great! Thank's mike and jim.
Now my PSA is next level, but I still need 7 million to get it to the next badge after this. I like the sapphire color a lot better than the Jade ;)
I tend to agree there. My GFN and PPS-Sieve badges went from turquoise to jade, and I must say I liked turquoise better!
____________
My lucky number is 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! | |
|
|
|
|
Well, a couple of my nice 'gold' badges are now pink and much uglier IMHO.
Can I turn them all off?
Thanks. | |
|
|
|
|
Great discussion, good to see a more level set up. I noticed a few of mine changed, but not sure from what as I didn't have a page open from before the change.
____________
 | |
|
|
|
|
"all in" turquoise is my new future
____________
 
Have a nice day today | |
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but I don`t like this new BADGE List.
____________
Member of Charity Team
   | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8047
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,741,973
RAC: 63,064
|
Sorry, but I don`t like this new BADGE List.
I'm always interested in everyone's opinion. What is it about the changed credit thresholds you don't like?
____________
My lucky number is 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! | |
|
|
|
|
I was so looking forward to all silver (except that pesky PPS sieve). Alas, I now have gold among my badges.
Ahhhh, the price of progress.
(and to misquote some..."we don't need no stinking badges!") | |
|
|
|
|
Love the new badge levels! Makes a lot more sense, and I had 3 badges increase to the next step! :-)
The only disappointment is that instead of being 4 days from a PPS sieve sapphire, I am now 4 days and 10 million points from emerald. I love watching those badges change over.
____________
Eating more cheese on Thursdays. | |
|
DaveSend message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 1492
ID: 130544
Credit: 450,873,296
RAC: 179,400
|
|
Thanks for the changes.
Had an interesting (positive) day myself for non-PG reasons so only just saw these changes this eve.
As a result I am turning off TRP sieve on my slower resources as it's already hit amethyst (prematurely ;)). They may slightly help w/ Cullen actually.
| |
|
|
|
|
My gold turned to an ugly pink today on my Genefer but it'll change soon :)
I'm all good with the changes
____________
 | |
|
DirkSend message
Joined: 10 Mar 10
Posts: 354
ID: 56675
Credit: 443,469,006
RAC: 2,512,789
|
|
I got some ugly pink too. Working to change some to fancy ruby. | |
|
|
|
|
Nobody likes ugly pink.
And it's clear - fancy ruby is up to 32 times more expensive than amethyst.
____________
8535*2^669297+1 — my first Top 5000 prime
270952368585*2^1290000-1 — my last found prime | |
|
HonzaVolunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 15 Aug 05
Posts: 1555
ID: 352
Credit: 1,433,472,658
RAC: 696,973
|
Nobody likes ugly pink.
And it's clear - fancy ruby is up to 32 times more expensive than amethyst.
Yeah, and it is still a bit of way to double pink...
____________
My stats
Badge score: 1*1 + 2*1 + 5*2 + 7*6 + 8*5 + 9*1 + 10*1 + 12*2 = 138 | |
|
|
|
|
What is Pink ?
____________
Have a nice day today | |
|
DaveSend message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 1492
ID: 130544
Credit: 450,873,296
RAC: 179,400
|
|
Quicker I gse all amethyst the quicker I can get to ruby therefore ;)...
Based on ruby being 32× value of amethyst, does that mean double ruby is 16× amethyst... | |
|
|
|
|
nice
 | |
|
|
|
|
Dear friends, it seems to me, in the heat of discussion we forget why the badges are needed. After all, we already have BOINC credits that have a smooth progression and haven't the upper threshold, so we never have to upgrade credit set :-). Also, we have Credit Milestones.
If the badges will have a simple progression, they will have no differences from credits. Also if badge set will be large enough, the badges also will have no differences from credits. Simple there will be two competing sets of "credits", which will be converted to each other at a fixed rate like the currencies in real world.
I think that the badges are some awards, so the harder to get the next award, so it is more desirable. Therefore it is not necessary that all subprojects have the same levels of badges. Now, when the LLR and sieves levels are equal, it turned out that I, for example, received the next level badge absolutely for nothing, which significantly reduced its value and importance to me, and now I am not so interesting to strive for the next level.
Especially, I want to say, the equalization of badge levels that is done now actually do not equalize it, as each subproject has its own credit bonus which affect the ease of achieving badges. For example, in SoB there is easier to reach the next level by 60 % in comparison with the PPS LLR, because SoB sub-project has a 50% long job credit bonus and a 10% conjecture credit bonus, but PPS haven't it. Of course, here we consider only credits, rather than risk associated with long run-time. So the badges in this two sub-projects are not the same. There is a similar way in the case of projects that use a GPU.
Therefore, it seems to me that the change in badge levels is not only useless but harmful. | |
|
Crun-chiVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 09
Posts: 1862
ID: 50683
Credit: 26,741,344
RAC: 41,391
|
|
On the end what is badge?
Badge is few colors pixel on screen. It is only reward we got from this project. It is small satisfaction for our effort, using our computers, using our electrical energy and paying all expenses from our pocket. ( or at least many of us do that). So I dont care is my badge yellow or green, to me it is only one relevant thing - that I know what badge represent. What is badge level, how long I need to get next one, it is all irrelevant thing. I know that I cannot do competition with persons that have many hundred or thousands cores in some research center. That person will always get badge before me. But my badges are my pride, and I am happy to get them. So if Mike give me next level badge I certainly have nothing against it :)
Primes are different story.....
____________
9 *10^1009567-1 REPDIGIT MEGA PRIME :) :) :)
57*2^3339932-1 MEGA PRIME :)
4 *737^269302+1 GENERALIZED FERMAT :)
Proud member of team Aggie The Pew. Go Aggie! | |
|
|
|
|
Ben tiens... vous me faite croire que les gens ne viennent que pour les "médailles" comme en France...
Et pas pour la recherche... | |
|
|
|
|
Remsk,
Parce que vous avez raison
in English ;
Yourè right
My badges are also my pride, but it is the science and the project and not the color of my pride! Previously we had only 4 colors but there is none died because of the color. Do you see the science, not just the color. We are not a painter, we are Cruncher. The new budges are good, now dont worry, be happy - lets crunch
I will find a Mega-Prime, but not a color
____________
Have a nice day today | |
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8047
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,741,973
RAC: 63,064
|
Ben tiens... vous me faite croire que les gens ne viennent que pour les "médailles" comme en France...
Et pas pour la recherche...
People come here for lots of different reasons. Credit motivates some people. Specific, attainable goals (i.e., badges) motivate others. Some want to find prime numbers. Still others are motivated simply by wanting to support the research.
Regardless of why they want to be here, they're all welcome.
____________
My lucky number is 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! | |
|
Post to thread
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Proposed badge level adjustment |
