[QUOTE=Bdot;289584]EDIT: However, the line disagrees with what the "View Assignments" page says: "... you have done on average 224.105 GHz Days of work per day." But my avg. line seems to end at ~175.[/QUOTE]

That language is actually inaccurate. The 224 GD value is what you've done on average per day in the last 30 days (or since someone started the project if less than 30).

Once I have the expanded metrics exposed it will make more sense.

Edit: And I've modified the language to indicate that the value being presented is the average over the last 30 days. Thanks for pointing that out Bdot.

[QUOTE=chalsall;289589]The 224 GD value is what you've done on average per day in the last 30 days (or since someone started the project if less than 30).[/QUOTE]I think that is the more interesting number. Would it be possible to present the average line in the graph as a 30-day moving average rather than start-to-now average? I'm not sure if now-30 or now+/-15 is a more interesting number for graphing purposes, although sticking with now-30 to match the wording elsewhere might be prudent.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;289597]I think that is the more interesting number. Would it be possible to present the average line in the graph as a 30-day moving average rather than start-to-now average? I'm not sure if now-30 or now+/-15 is a more interesting number for graphing purposes, although sticking with now-30 to match the wording elsewhere might be prudent.[/QUOTE]

Sigh... Like a poem, [URL="http://linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2000/09/15/blackhole.html?page=5"]no software is finished, only abandoned[/URL].

I'll look into it.

[QUOTE=chalsall;289601]I'll look into it.[/QUOTE]It's our universe: we imagine, you create. :smile:

Seriously, your efforts are appreciated!

Suggestion: Either in the various "Worker's Progress" reports, or in personal stats pages, add a metric that shows how much work has been saved by each worker. I say this not for myself, but because such a metric would be better for Xyzzy/nucleon to compete on, namely because it would be heavily weighted towards LLTF factors (where nucleon has a more-than-healthy lead).

[QUOTE=Dubslow;289615]I say this not for myself, but because such a metric would be better for Xyzzy/nucleon to compete on, namely because it would be heavily weighted towards LLTF factors (where nucleon has a more-than-healthy lead).[/QUOTE]

An excellent suggestion!!! :smile:

Work saved is a far more important metric that simply the number of factors found.

Perhaps this will help get our two giants back to the more important work before us....

Heh, right now I am #1 in work saved according to the website, but something must be wrong, because that cannot possibly be true, just by the # of LL factors found.

It's different now than it was ten minutes ago, and you're no longer #1, and nucleon is now much further ahead of Xyzzy (I remember thinking it was odd that nucleon was only ahead of Xyzzy by 200 GD, but now he's ahead by 2000 GD). I think chalsall fixed it.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;289625]It's different now than it was ten minutes ago, and you're no longer #1, and nucleon is now much further ahead of Xyzzy (I remember thinking it was odd that nucleon was only ahead of Xyzzy by 200 GD, but now he's ahead by 2000 GD). I think chalsall fixed it.[/QUOTE]

As always, my glory was both undeserved and temporary :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;289618]Work saved is a far more important metric that simply the number of factors found.[/QUOTE]

OK... This has been implemented on the various [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/"]Workers' Progress Reports[/URL].

Unfortunately, for those who don't understand what we're doing, some will ask "Why are they spending more time than they're saving?" since we're mostly comparing apples and oranges (GPUs and CPUs).

But for those who do understand, the results are interesting. Particularily, take a look at GDs Done vs Saved between Pete, Greg and Kyle.

Craig and Xyzzy -- you two still want to fight it out in the DC range??? :wink:

[QUOTE=Dubslow;289625]I think chalsall fixed it.[/QUOTE]

Just getting the SQL query "sane" on the fly. It's correct now.

Craig and Xyzzy are neck-and-neck. But surprisingly, Kyle with 28% of Craig's throughput, is not that far behind them in Savings....