Stardust@home

Would it be a difficult software update if the ranking would only be counting active dusters (=score not equal to zero)? So that instead of "231 out of 24649" I have now, would be something like "231 out of 2310"?

I have exactly the same frustration. I find it very hard to accept that I'm being "punished" for not finding a track in a CM, even though I DID see it but had serious doubts about it. This frustration started for me at the end of phase 1, where I had a specificity of 100%. But then I click...

I made most of my errors somewhere between movie 1 and 100. I remember it made me very angry at myself but it helped to get more concentrated on finding tracks. What made me really furious was the single error in specificity I had so far. I did know that it could be an inclusion, but I clicked on it...

If there are any logical reasons why what I am proposing cannot be the case I'm all ears! If your theory would be correct, that would make this experiment the most expensive one ever in history! (considering the possible outcome) In other words, NASA would be very foolish to launch a spacecraft wor...

502 calibration / 1370 real : 36,64%

Movie 9360246V1

Orion_0169 wrote:First, Hermax, some of the hits on the callibration movies are VERY small. And only show up in last few layers.

I did leave an opening that there might be tracks in those movies
All I want is to be pointed to them, so I can narrow the risk of missing a real track.

I totally agree!
I also have 4 wrong answers on calibration tracks where there was absolutely NOTHING to see.
And if there was a track, I sure want to learn how to spot those.

Like this, it's discouraging. I want to learn from my mistakes, but I need feedback for that.