I grappled with this chart logic for some time before realising that it doesn't randomly space things over random days. It randomly spaces them over the time between when you got the assignment and when you finish it.

So, if it takes you 10 days to finish an assignment because it sat in your queue for 9 days before you started on it, it will appear in the last 10 days (once your current day has caught up to the work of the previous day).

I'm not going to pretend that chart doesn't annoy the hell out of me, but now that I actually understand exactly what it's doing, and I now that I can control how accurate it is myself by increasing or decreasing the amount of data I keep in my queue, it is considerably less frustrating and more elegant feeling than it was in my mind before.

[QUOTE=chalsall;332647]When I implemented this, I did say that no information is lost. There's an "adjusted" field in the table which is used to spread the results out over the time they were out.

This has had a very useful effect of removing huge spikes in the overall graphs. However, if people want (and I get the impression they do) I could make available graphs for individuals without the adjustments.[/QUOTE]

Unadjusted graphs for me pretty please with bells on. :smile:

I'm aware that nothing is lost. Its just that the redistribution seems to be somewhat arbitrary at times!

How easy would it be to detect the people who return results daily (say over the previous 7 days) and provide them with unadjusted graphs automatically?

[QUOTE=Antonio;332687]
How easy would it be to detect the people who return results daily (say over the previous 7 days) and provide them with unadjusted graphs automatically?[/QUOTE]

Maybe just give them the choice of which.

[QUOTE=kracker;332688]Maybe just give them the choice of which.[/QUOTE]

OK, I don't have much time at the moment, so I've just done a quick-and-dirty change to the "Worker's" GHz Days Work Saved and Work Done graphs to use the real "Completed" date rather than the "Adjusted" date. You can see that for many people, the graphs become much less readable because of "spikes".

What I'll do (when I have more time) is make both types available. I'll have the "Adjusted" be the default, and the "Un-adjusted" graphs available as a click-through.

Thanks! It has a different perspective on almost everyone, hehe :smile:

[URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/6e67460a77a11a707a665a6270df1a82/"]like..[/URL]

I pulled the plug on my TF and P-1 systems yesterday. I have one back up running for a while and my LL systems will run for a while longer. First time in 16 months the house is quiet.

[QUOTE=flashjh;332721]I pulled the plug on my TF and P-1 systems yesterday. I have one back up running for a while and my LL systems will run for a while longer. First time in 16 months the house is quiet.[/QUOTE]

Thank's for all your cycles Jerry!!! :smile:

[QUOTE=flashjh;332721]I pulled the plug on my TF and P-1 systems yesterday. I have one back up running for a while and my LL systems will run for a while longer. First time in 16 months the house is quiet.[/QUOTE]

:smile: Good wishes to you from now! When are you moving?







[SIZE="1"][COLOR="Silvr"](P.S.: There goes our 2nd largest P-1 user)[/COLOR][/SIZE]

We leave Cheyenne on Apr 19.

Thanks everyone. I'll be around once I get settled.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;332670]I'm not going to pretend that chart doesn't annoy the hell out of me, but now that I actually understand exactly what it's doing, and I now that I can control how accurate it is myself by increasing or decreasing the amount of data I keep in my queue, it is considerably less frustrating and more elegant feeling than it was in my mind before.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. Thanks for objectivity. I did not catch this discussion when it started, otherwise I would say that I felt better with the "averaging" things. Some of the people newer here may not know that it was a time when "big guns" like Xyzzy or nucleon used to report their result once per month, and when you put on the graphic a bar of few hundred thousands GhzDays, everything near it looks like dust, so the graphics were looking like a white sheet with a single bar somewhere. That was the reason the "averaging" was introduced, to make possible for "mortals" like us to see other things on the graphics, beside a single tall bar in the middle. Luckily now few "big guns" left, they use misfit or other batches to report their work more frequently, so honestly I don't mind if we keep the averaging or just display the results as they are reported. But just to know the history, this was not done because someone wanted to cheat you on the scores, but because it was necessary. It is a bit to late now, as it was already changed, but if up to me, I would vote to keep the averaging.

[QUOTE=LaurV;332760]It is a bit to late now, as it was already changed, but if up to me, I would vote to keep the averaging.[/QUOTE]

The averaging will be re-introduced soon, with the option of viewing the "true" graphs for those who want to ensure their graphs exactly match their tabular reports.

Also, the "Overall" graphs will remain averaged. We still have too many people submitting their results only every week or so not to.