Indeterminate with 5 or less agreements

[DustBuster]

Do you have events with 5 or less agreements that seem to be promising candidates that are 'Indeterminate' status?
I've noticed these FOV's have also been viewed about half as many times as other events in my list.

Here are some examples:

3161287V1 2/139

2050051V1 3/151

Any others that seem they are being overlooked because of their low rating or limited distribution?

[Groundling]

Hi DustBuster;
Sorry; I don't see anything in #1-- 3161287V1. I find the surface just a few bars from the bottom of the scale. The object in the upper left comes into focus very close to the defect at the bottom
In #2--- 2050051V1, I guess you'r looking at the possible horizontal track in the upper right.
I seldom click on those anymore. I find that I'm concentrating so hard that I don't even see them most of the time.
That's why they want lots of us. Different judgment will give them a wider set of choices.
I just keep fumbling along.
Groundling

[Howie]

Hi There,

I have many as you mentioned, plus many such as, 14/250 and 33/300, etc.

They keep slowly changing.

Also, some like 66/290.

The team just has not got to them yet.

Howie

[DustBuster]

Sorry, you both missed my point.
The idea was to spotlight potential candidates that have very few agreements (5 or less) and, for whatever reason, have a lower distribution rate.

Part of the goal of this project is to expediently locate candidates for review- determined by ranking from the examiners (us).
One of the first candidates to be reviewed was NOT selected by ranking but was found posted on the forum (see Update) and had a low agreement rate.

This thread can bring attention to these candidates that might not get reviewed for years or possibly disregarded altogether as erroneous clicks-a tool to help identify those that might 'slip through the cracks'.
User reviews are not necessary, nor is information about events that do not fit the criteria stipulated at the top of the post-
A constructive way to contribute to the cause while awaiting a fix for the javascript problems that we have been told many times is being worked on.

[wxman04]

This one has a bit more than five hits (9 agreements out of 311 views), but could be worthy of investigation, I think. It's hard to see -- at the bottom center next to the dot.
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =9764334V1

I have two more promising ones (5 of 31 and 3 of 15). I'll give those a bit more time.

[marymouse]

OK Dustbuster. These are some on my list. Some may be bad focus but seemed possible.

2125816V1- 4/49
6046009V1 - 1/14
3632039V1 - 1/56
9611608V1 - 2/51
792385V1 - 3/120
8658368V1 - 7/170

[greuti]

Have two of such potential candidates (ok, probably only one of them) with too low agreements:

9769349V1 10/212 - down-right quarter. It looks different to a common inclusion.
6054940V1 1/208 - top-right quarter. Ok, that's one of those speculative clicks, besides the bad focus decisions.

I guess 10 or 5 clicks of (over) 200 viewings are the same problem regarding not get reviewed for long time.

[Howie]

Have two of such potential candidates (ok, probably only one of them) with too low agreements:

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =9769349V1 10/212 - down-right quarter. It looks different to a common inclusion.
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =6054940V1 1/208 - top-right quarter. Ok, that's one of those speculative clicks, besides the bad focus decisions. :)

I guess 10 or 5 clicks of (over) 200 viewings are the same problem regarding not get reviewed for long time.

***********************************

If I am looking at what you see, Both just start coming up at end of focus and yes, possible, but, both need further focus...

Howie

[Howie]

This one has a bit more than five hits (9 agreements out of 311 views), but could be worthy of investigation, I think. It's hard to see -- at the bottom center next to the dot.
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =9764334V1

I have two more promising ones (5 of 31 and 3 of 15). I'll give those a bit more time.

************************************

I say NO...I see a circle before and after focus???

Howie

[Howie]

Do you have events with 5 or less agreements that seem to be promising candidates that are 'Indeterminate' status?
I've noticed these FOV's have also been viewed about half as many times as other events in my list.

Here are some examples:

3161287V1 2/139

2050051V1 3/151

Any others that seem they are being overlooked because of their low rating or limited distribution?

***************************************

I clicked bad focus for these 2 examples???
Howie

[skeeter]

Here are two examples from my events

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =3734336V1
45 viewers & 2 agreements

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =5122956V1
34 viewers & 4 agreements

I think the number of low viewers on most of these is due to people clicking bad focus.

[Howie]

Here are two examples from my events

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =3734336V1
45 viewers & 2 agreements

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =5122956V1
34 viewers & 4 agreements

I think the number of low viewers on most of these is due to people clicking bad focus.

*********************************************
Also low figures are due to low viewing by participants...
Can you point out the area in your 2 events???
I have many of them lately and I am not the 1st to view new movies...
I am not sure but see maybe 1 place on each movie you have...
Howie

[skeeter]

3734336V1 is in the lower right corner - right on top of the "wrinkle"

5122956V1 is lower right quadrant, about 1/3 of the way from the bottom and about 1 inch from the right.

[Howie]

3734336V1 is in the lower right corner - right on top of the "wrinkle"

5122956V1 is lower right quadrant, about 1/3 of the way from the bottom and about 1 inch from the right.

********************************************

1st one I don't think so???
2nd one Maybe but needs more focus bars which are missing and if I would have clicked on anything would have been the one in the upper right corner...
Maybe some others will review when they get back on forum...

I seem to be the only one today staying with a good thread/post???

Howie

[Groundling]

Hi Dustbuster;
I now think I see your question.
For #1--I think most searchers would mark this bad focus. When I click bad focus, a movie does'nt count in my viewed total. I wonder if it does get recorded in the computer's viewed total. It certainly should, but we've seen a couple of glitches in the totalizer or program.
For #2--I get the impression that the team wants to narrow to interstellar tracks. At least I have not been looking at the surface and lateral marks like I used to.
This is just my approach out of 19000, but points out how variations in the searchers can affect the simple statistics.
I'm sure that we have a widely varied "views vs hits vs time in the pool" for the computer to choose from.
A movie could possibly be in the pool for a month or even two. (random is as random does)
Others might only have been added this week.
That update you refered to was in the first weeks of the project. Before a ranking by hits % could be established.
I don't think I have enough facts to get a real picture of the numbers as a whole.
I don't get as confused if I just stick to the search.
Groundling