Talk:Folding@home/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Results (and better summarisation of them)

I believe it's important that results be better summarized in lay language or in such a manner that they explain better what the results are all about and what they may lead to. -Mardus (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above. I came here to see what had been achieved by the project, but this long string of scientific manuscripts with names of authors etc isn't really helping. Presumably someone associated with the project could provide a brief synopsis of the most significant developments in research that this project has helped to bring about. Ubertoaster (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

See this http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ and particularly this http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-Diseases. I'm participating in the project, and am pretty passionate about it. There are many others out there, but I can certainly help you. On the suggestion, I'm considering moving the list of publications to a separate article. Also, the cores need to be dealt with, perhaps in a similar manner. Thoughts? Jessemv (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Second biggest

Folding@home has now been surpassed in terms of cumputer power by bitcoin. According to bitcoinwatch.com, bitcoin has a total power of about 19 Petaflop/s. The article's claim of being the biggest distributed computing cluster is thus false. 213.66.122.5 (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it even a distributed computing project? According to the website, it's simply a currency transaction/trading application.

194.80.64.113 (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a glorified pyramid scheme from where I see it 122.57.186.20 (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think BitCoin is a distributed-computing project. Its just a money exchanger thing, and the petaFLOPS don't really mean anything other than that stuff is moving around. If I recall right, you have to do some brief calculations to perform a trade, or something like that. So its purpose is trading, not computing. The computing is a side effect. Besides, the article has been changed by someone else to no longer claim that it is the largest. IMHO, it is though. Jessemv (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for GA

I noticed this as a GA candidate, and after glancing at the article, if I were the reviewer, I'd fail it due to the extremely long embedded lists (part of criteria 1a of good article criteria). Quite frankly, the reader is probably not interested in the details about every single Active/Inactive Core, nor is the reader interested in every single scholarly publication that has used Folding@home data. You might want to split these lists out into their own sub-articles, and write a paragraph or two of prose to summarize the data instead. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed a while back. Better now? GA process is likely to start up again. The last attempts at GA and FA were quite frankly pitiful and embarrassing. Unlike those attempts, I am honestly looking to improve the article to GA/FA status, and it is ALMOST there. Standby. Jessemv (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Folding@home/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

After a cursory read, I see that this article meets quick-fail criteria, as a result of much of the article being embedded lists, the references being bare URLs, and other issues. As the nominator is indef-blocked, there's no one to fix it, so I'm failing the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't there an update on the Petaflops achievment.

I realize that there are two measurements of the FLOPS. The nativeFLOPS and the x86FLOPS But I was wondering why the achievement of reaching sustaining 6.2 x86FLOPS on April 2010 isn't mentioned or some sort of comparable graph to the between the two. As it is credited as being one of the records on FLOPS page but not on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.218.245 (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That issue should be fixed now, but not exactly by a graph. See the native FLOPS are used because those records go back. We simply have no information as to the x86 FLOPS way back in some of the early milestones. The article mentions the conversions, and if the reader wants more info they can click on the citation. Let me know if you have any further suggestions. Jessemv (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia team

Just wanted to point out that the wikipedia team # is 42223 - CompuTerror™ 13:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I guess. There's a link to the team under External Links. Jessemv (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Folding@home cores

I have recently moved the "Cores" section of the article to its own page. Here are some of my reasons for doing so: After reviewing policies regarding what can and cannot be in an article, I felt that the Cores section should be its own article. Here are some of my reasons: 1) At it was in the F@H article, the list was very long, and annoying to scroll through. 2) I don't see the list getting shorter. To the contrary, as new cores are added and old ones retire, the list will grow. Thus it should be split off somehow. 3) For those coming to the F@h article, it is likely irrelevant information. They end up having to scroll through this big monotonous list to get to the rest of the article. Most people probably look up F@h on Wikipedia not for its cores, but for general information about the project itself, what it has done, and where it is going. This is covered very well in the article minus the Cores section. 4) There is a lot more information specifically about cores than what was currently there. What was there is little notes and things. I believe that people didn't expand on it for reasons including that it would worsen the length of the list. Also its a bit technical, but some people have the know-how to add things, but there's a lot of general information that can be added as well. 5) The cores have enough references and enough to talk about to warrant their own article. Certainly information specifically about GROMACS or TINKER could be brought in. Information on specific cores is found in other places. Its not a main talking point here on the forums, but if one hunts around some good information can be found. There's probably a lot more information about them than can be found for some other Wikipedia articles, like the list of all obscure fictional Jedi who ever lived. 6) I or someone else can turn the list into paragraphs that flow well and are easier to read. This would also make it more encyclopedic. 7) Wikipedia's Be Bold policy. 8) There was a topic on this talk page about the length of the Core section and how they didn't think it belonged. It is important information, so I didn't want to get rid of it altogether.

I hope I referenced the article all right, but of course feel free to change it. The Folding@home cores article is fairly new, and needs some cleanup. Also, I don't think I'm allowed to remove the "New Article" tag, so perhaps someone else could eventually replace it with a Stub tag or something. Finally, if you can, please edit and expand it! Thanks. Jessemv (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

New Article flag has been removed. Would be nice if the article had some more information to each core though. Jessemv (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)