gigaflop statistics on the map should be per unit area.
happyjack27, Wed Feb 20 2008, 01:03PMThe statistics on the map shows gigaflops. It should be gigaflops per unit area. To illustrate this, imagine the U.S. was divided into two, by the current method, that would make it turn from red to orange. But the spatial distribution of computing resources didn't change, so the colors shouldn't.
A population map doesn't color by total population, it colors by population _density_. The gigaflops need to be divided by the area of the country, so that the color represents computational _density_. This is much more meaningful and its what one intuitively expects when they look at the map.
Re: gigaflop statistics on the map should be per unit area.
James, Fri Feb 22 2008, 07:58AM
By what "density" would you have me use? Population? Land area? Number of people participating in boinc? Other than the last one, I'd need a source for the data.
James, Fri Feb 22 2008, 07:58AM
By what "density" would you have me use? Population? Land area? Number of people participating in boinc? Other than the last one, I'd need a source for the data.
Re: gigaflop statistics on the map should be per unit area.
Saenger, Fri Feb 22 2008, 01:51PM
Population would be good imho.
Credits per capita.
I think data should be available somehow, as Willy is using this feature.
One possible source.
Found an even better one there:
Internet users per country
Saenger, Fri Feb 22 2008, 01:51PM
Population would be good imho.
Credits per capita.
I think data should be available somehow, as Willy is using this feature.
One possible source.
Found an even better one there:
Internet users per country
Re: gigaflop statistics on the map should be per unit area.
happyjack27, Mon Feb 25 2008, 10:32AM
I was thinking land area. That seems to me to be the most intuitive: computation per unit area. Population came to mind as an after-thought. Land area is also easier than population, as the data is right in front of you, quite literally (or you could get the stats from wikipedia, as i'm sure you could for population), and it doesn't change.
You could always add in a group of radio buttons or something so that a user can switch between land area, population, or what have you, but my initial thought was land area; sq. ft./mile/km.
happyjack27, Mon Feb 25 2008, 10:32AM
I was thinking land area. That seems to me to be the most intuitive: computation per unit area. Population came to mind as an after-thought. Land area is also easier than population, as the data is right in front of you, quite literally (or you could get the stats from wikipedia, as i'm sure you could for population), and it doesn't change.
You could always add in a group of radio buttons or something so that a user can switch between land area, population, or what have you, but my initial thought was land area; sq. ft./mile/km.
Re: gigaflop statistics on the map should be per unit area.
AMDave, Thu Feb 28 2008, 05:03AM
Capita seems to make more sense.
There are geographically small countries with large population versus geographically large countries with small populations.
In fact the GDP rate may even be a better denominator as it relates directly to the country's economic "capabilty".
GDP might show a more revealing statistic than Capita.
AMDave, Thu Feb 28 2008, 05:03AM
Capita seems to make more sense.
There are geographically small countries with large population versus geographically large countries with small populations.
In fact the GDP rate may even be a better denominator as it relates directly to the country's economic "capabilty".
GDP might show a more revealing statistic than Capita.
Print this page