I know someone complained that their RAC didn't add up. But I think most people would agree to use the RAC as given by the projects.

1) It is easy for users to see their actual project given RAC for each project. Otherwise they have to go to their detailed stats and click for details on each project seperately. I, and I'm sure not many people do want to go to every project site, or click on each detailed stats page to see their RACs

2) There are even more problems with addition, look at mine for example:

I prefer the adjusted RAC. The RAC at the projects is less accurate since it is based on the last time there was a credit event.

I also like it this way, some projects do not even have the RAC decay feature switched on, so some members look like they are crunching loads even when they have packed up & left

Maybe it is better this new way, it probably only causes problems with new CPIDs which is why mine is over 2,000 but should be around 500. At the current rate it could take several weeks until mine is accurate

I would personally prefer that RAC be as reported by the projects. But perhaps the best of both worlds could be achieved if this were an option that could be chosen by each user to decide for themselves.

That would mean inconsistency between my sig and yours.

Maybe that's really the issue then, that there's no universal standard for how RAC is calculated and how stats appear on sigs. Let's face it, the BOINCstats RAC numbers seem to be generally lower, so maybe the issue is that some crunchers using the BOINCstats sig feel slighted - especially since sigs from Synergy and others are using a different standard. Unless there's a universally adopted standard that includes proper decay calculations AND doesn't give undue credit to old numbers (for inactive projects), then there's always going to be this conflict.

I personally use the Synergy signature for two reasons: first and foremost, because I like being able to see the percentile rankings, as it gives me an easy way to see how my numbers are "competing" with others. Second and less important, because the RAC is higher, and why would I want to look like I have smaller numbers in forums, etc. when others' numbers are a bit inflated? I think the reality is that, silly as it may be, the credit system has successfully appealed to the competitive nature of human beings and turned that competitive drive into greater productivity. And that will always be a key feature to the success of DC. There is a part of me, of course, that participates because it's a worthy thing to do. But who doesn't love following their numbers? So with all that in mind, size does matter to some, and some users will always feel shortchanged by the lower RAC if others are benefiting from the inflated numbers elsewhere.

So as I see it we have three options: 1) push for universal adoption of the "correct" BOINCstats calculation method, 2) forget accuracy and soothe the egos of users with the higher RAC numbers, or 3) leave everything as is and revisit this argument every few months. I vote for either option 1 or 2 - preferably option 1. As long as it's fair from one project to another, everyone should be happy.

That being said, how would you go about getting all projects, present and future, to buy into the standard?

It's strange that BOINC server doesn't have RAC decay task configured by default. It's also pretty hidden on the server documentation.

Teamwork(): list all projects that don't run RAC decay for inactive users. I can tell right now that Malaria doesn't, haven't run it for months but I have a RAC of around 60.

@PovAddict - Quite true. But with several stats sites offering signatures there is no real consistency to begin with. I wouldn't mind so much if the two standards here were closer to each other, but mine are different by thousands. I have made several changes to my farm during the past month or so; perhaps the numbers will settle down in time.

I am certainly not immune from wanting to see "big stats", I have an ego as do many. However the main reason is simply one of accuracy. The sites RAC numbers are running very close to my actual numbers, just over 6000/day. But as previously stated my BOINCstats numbers are way off.

@picantecomputing - I also like seeing rankings expressed both as a percentage and as a number as with Synergy. Must one join their team to use their signature?

Nope. No need to join the Synergy team (I haven't). You'll need to create an account with them though, as they use your account number with them as part of your signature URL. Take a look at this link (you'll need to scroll down to 'Synergy: How do I get set up a SIGNATURE image?' to read more about their sigs). The sign-up link is in the upper-left corner of the page. It's pretty quick.

Many thanks! I'll give them a shot.

Actually, it looks like they've just added percentages to the BOINCstats sigs! See this thread.

Thanks, Willy!

Thanks indeed Willy, nice addition.

Hi Willy,

I'm not sure if this is the right thread to report problems with the new signature functions.

As you can see, I have some graphic errors in my signature background image.
I've created it as JPG first, then as GIF - which was really better but the graphical errors (pixels wrong) really makes it look bad...

There are indeed problems with some backgrounds and I'm trying different settings to create the sigs, but PHP image functions aren't really very advanced.

For now you'll have to experiment a bit to make it look good.

You can't get much with only 256 colors anyway. Unless another format is used, like PNG, backgrounds won't look very good.

JPEG could be a nice one.

Did I forgot to mention?????

You can use .jpg extenstion and the output will be a JPG graphic file.

I also implemented PNG but I disabled it because the files are way too big.

I think you did! Not on the FAQ, at least, it only mentions GIF.

Anyway the best improvement would be to remove the border color of the font - (which is the background color) to have a better contrast with images.

And: where is this one color defined that is handled as transparent in the GIFs?
Should I define it myself before adding the GIF?

This border color is added by the font drawer to make the font smoother



The transparent color is the color at the most topleft position (0,0).

Is there a way to make this optional?
So giving this pixel a unique colour in the palette should prevent the rest from being transparent?

No.

Yes.

Would it be possible to implement that you can edit the caption of the sig for your own?
For example: "x from Team y"

That can be done.

Meh, I'm working on my own sig now, using XML data from boinc.netsoft-online.com.