The idea of creating teams for BOINC was to encourage some competition, which would lead to more computers being provided to the cluster. That works, but now that several large teams have been established they dominate the ratings and the competition has settled down a bit.

There are other ways to measure performance. In particular, we can see how well a team does not by overall credit, but by the credit per member. This gives small teams an equal chance against the larger teams.

I've modified the top teams display to include both total and average credit per member. Only teams with more than one member are counted in these ratings. As you can see, the teams that were at the top still do well, but are not necessarily at the top.

I hope to be able to release new work this weekend, starting with something for our (remaining?) Mac crew members.
____________
-- Eric Myers

"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." -- William Butler Yeats

Good idea. Well done!!
____________

That's pretty cool...
____________

Very nice, I hope this gets adopted across the projects. But you say teams of only one person aren't included. I'm the only member of my team (on this ship, anyway), and I show as #46 on the list.

[edit]Never mind, I see how that's working - I don't show up if I sort by either of the "per member" stats. Cool![/edit]

MJ
____________
Hail, Poetry, thou heav'n-born maid!
Thou gildest e'en the pirate's trade.
Hail, flowing fount of sentiment!
Hail, all hail, divine emollient!

What do you mean large teams tend to dominate *innocent grin*

No no no! Its so unfair.

I am not serious! ... its a nice addition. May even look at adding something similar to my stats pages.

---
Zain Upton
BOINC Synergy - www.boincsynergy.com
____________

Teamless? Drop by BOINC Synergy and look around. Also checkout our famous BOINC World Stats

Here is a concern I have for these new rankings. One way the teams could respond to try to improve their scores is to encourage members who have not contributed in a while to come back. That is good. But another way is to just kick those folks out. In the end it is up to the teams to manage their own affairs, but we could actually be promoting such unfriendly behavior with these new rankings.

The team leaders have access to the e-mail addresses of all members, but there is no direct support for targeting particular types of members. However, the team management page makes it easy to remove members based on credit and RAC. So I see removal as the easier and therefore more likely alternative. I don't like that.

Meanwhile, there is a (fairly new) mass e-mail feature for the project administrator which can send e-mail to subsets of users (lapsed, contributing, successful, unsuccessful). It would be straightforward to modify this so that team leaders could send mass e-mails to their members (as long as we insure that only the leader of the team can send such messages, and they only go to team members).

So I don't think we want to suggest these new rankings unless/until there is also support like this for positive encouragement for lapsed or unsuccessful team members, rather than having the easiest alternative being to just drop these folks from the team.
____________
-- Eric Myers

"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." -- William Butler Yeats

I see what you mean, kicking anybody who doesn't have RAC > X. Maybe not even inactive people, but people with slow computers, or few computers. That definitely would be a Bad Thing (tm).

I've just took a look at my team, management functions. I see:

"Remove Members from <Team Name>
Removing a member will subtract their credit from team totals"

Do I have to read it like "subtract their credit, possibly earned in future, from team totals"?

IIRC only on some one Boinc project it was working this way (called "old Seti way") that the past user's credit is traveling with her/him from team to team, the standard Boinc way should be that user's credit is added to him and his current team and the two sums won't change when the user moves to another address.

Or is the difference the kicking of the user? But then there would have to be a sum of user's credit, while he was signed to team <Team Name>.

Or is it only a non-bulletproof formulation?

I may stand corrected.
____________
Peter .-)

I've just took a look at my team, management functions. I see:

"Remove Members from <Team Name>
Removing a member will subtract their credit from team totals"

I have no idea what's going on.
Except the rum seems to be gone.
Why is the rum always gone?
____________

I have no idea what's going on.
Except the rum seems to be gone.
Why is the rum always gone?

Here is a concern I have for these new rankings. One way the teams could respond to try to improve their scores is to encourage members who have not contributed in a while to come back. That is good. But another way is to just kick those folks out. In the end it is up to the teams to manage their own affairs, but we could actually be promoting such unfriendly behavior with these new rankings.

Meanwhile, there is a (fairly new) mass e-mail feature for the project administrator which can send e-mail to subsets of users (lapsed, contributing, successful, unsuccessful). It would be straightforward to modify this so that team leaders could send mass e-mails to their members (as long as we insure that only the leader of the team can send such messages, and they only go to team members).