"There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post here if you are having any kind of problem with the Stardust@home website.

Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods

jsmaje
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:39 am
Location: Manchester UK

Re: CM 8978919V1

Post by jsmaje » Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:53 pm

BruceHull wrote:I did not click on anything in CM 8978919V1, but was marked as a miss.
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =8978919V1
Bruce - I would guess it's that thing at 96,213. It lasts for only a few bars before fading out in a sort of nebulous 'flare', starting surprisingly high and quickly disappearing before the bottom frames.
I've found this a current favourite type of fake track (probably all derived from a single candidate, re-scaled and re-oriented according to whichever team member's fancy and, as here, not always with adequate regard to the surrounding context).

BruceHull
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:18 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD USA

CM 1405626V1

Post by BruceHull » Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:49 am

There seems to be a problem with CM 1405626V1. The dust starts above the surface and extends throughout the entire movie changing slightly after the surface came into focus. I marked the spot and was scored as a hit.
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =1405626V1
Bruce

jsmaje
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:39 am
Location: Manchester UK

Re: CM 1405626V1

Post by jsmaje » Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:48 pm

BruceHull wrote:There seems to be a problem with CM 1405626V1
I agree - that just has to be the most outrageously badly pasted track I've seen.

Bryan has in fact previously admitted that the CM tracks have been inserted by a computer program.
Nevertheless (indeed particularly so), one would have hoped that someone on the team had responsibility for evaluating them before adding to the VM, and should have taken at least the same sort of care expected of us.

fjgiie
DustMod
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:47 am
Location: Hampton, SC, US

Should be 50 micron scale

Post by fjgiie » Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:36 am

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =1670000V1
Wrong scale, should be 50 Micron scale

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =8329353V1
Correct scale

Notice lens spots at the top.

bmendez
Stardust@home Team
Stardust@home Team
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:28 am
Location: UC Berkeley Space Sciences Lab
Contact:

Re: Should be 50 micron scale

Post by bmendez » Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:06 pm

fjgiie wrote:http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =1670000V1
Wrong scale, should be 50 Micron scale

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =8329353V1
Correct scale

Notice lens spots at the top.
I brought it to the attention of the Team. If you are rating it on the Red Team page, go ahead and note it in your comments as well.

Thanks,
-Bryan
"I am made from the dust of the stars, and the oceans flow in my veins"
- RUSH

fjgiie
DustMod
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:47 am
Location: Hampton, SC, US

High CM

Post by fjgiie » Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:20 am

This track is way above the surface and placed where Moe usually is in 100 micron movies. :(

Thanks,

fjgiie

jsmaje
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:39 am
Location: Manchester UK

High CM

Post by jsmaje » Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:42 pm

fjgiie wrote:This track is way above the surface and placed where Moe usually is in 100 micron movies.
'This track', i.e. 7589704V1, has been causing problems for some time.
I've found several postings about it such as these: 1, 2, 3,4. Personally I think it should be withdrawn.

Moe, meanwhile, has long been the team's favourite stooge!

John

BruceHull
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:18 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD USA

Post by BruceHull » Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:44 pm

There seems to be a problem with CM 3657095V1. I clicked at 226,310 and this was recorded as a miss. http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =3657095V1
Bruce

ST47
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by ST47 » Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:53 pm

I lost points for CM 6376341V1, I clicked it and there is a very obvious track.

ST47
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by ST47 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:36 pm

7500844V1 seems to have one movie in focus near the top and another at the bottom...

ST47
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by ST47 » Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:43 am

CM 4519774V1 also lost credit, another obvious track

rock
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: US

Bad + CM

Post by rock » Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:31 pm

Movie 9709624V1 seems to be a bad positive CM. (location of track 156, 333) Coordinates of track must be wrong.

fjgiie
DustMod
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:47 am
Location: Hampton, SC, US

Very faint CM

Post by fjgiie » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:47 am

The small square shows up better in this calibration movie than the simulated track does.

:) fjgiie

DanZ
Site Admin
Posts: 776
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:44 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Contact:

Re: Bad + CM

Post by DanZ » Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:20 pm

rock wrote:Movie 9709624V1 seems to be a bad positive CM. (location of track 156, 333) Coordinates of track must be wrong.
Sorry for the late reply, but can you clarify what you mean. Did you click at 156,333 and get it wrong? If so, then you were close enough and shouldn't have received a score for an incorrect answer. However, sometimes (although rarely) "scoring" gets delayed and so what looks like a bad score is actually the system catching up with a previous incorrect answer (see FAQ here). If you don't think this is the case, we can double check the database, but only if you can provide the date and TIME that you clicked that particular movie. Hope this helps! Dan

rock
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: US

Re: Bad + CM

Post by rock » Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:39 pm

DanZ wrote:
rock wrote:Movie 9709624V1 seems to be a bad positive CM. (location of track 156, 333) Coordinates of track must be wrong.
Sorry for the late reply, but can you clarify what you mean. Did you click at 156,333 and get it wrong? If so, then you were close enough and shouldn't have received a score for an incorrect answer. However, sometimes (although rarely) "scoring" gets delayed and so what looks like a bad score is actually the system catching up with a previous incorrect answer (see FAQ here). If you don't think this is the case, we can double check the database, but only if you can provide the date and TIME that you clicked that particular movie. Hope this helps! Dan
I was just reporting that Movie 9709624V1 is a bad calibration movie and I believe that the coordinates are wrong. I based this on my missing it several times and reports from other dusters who have missed it also.

I posted it here instead of "I answered a calibration movie right but was scored wrong" because I do not care about the missed points but just wanted report that I believe the coordinates are off. I continue to keep trying to hit it but never have. It's bad. Coordinates probably off. See if anyone has ever hit it. If they have hit it then I am wrong.

Post Reply