Stardust@home

I think keeping them in there gives the team more information about how we (the dusters) work (what we click on, what we don't, etc.).

Mighty Pete wrote:jcbc:
You clicked on a crack.

Very possibly. I just haven't seen one below the surface so far, so it was interesting to me.

JCBC

I clicked on 4858498V1 because it looks like there is a hair or scratch or something that goes below the surface. It must be from a new batch of movies because there were only 22 views at the time I clicked and I was the first to click. Not a track, but interesting...

JCBC

They want you to click on things that look like tracks. Stuff on the surface will show up out of focus when the microscope is focused below the surface. If your eyes are bad and you can't tell if something is in or out of focus, then you shouldn't be surprised that you are getting calibration movie...

Update:

Overall score: 650
Total Real Movies Viewed: 1132
Rank: 1149 out of 14020
Specificity: 99.10% (3 incorrect)
Sensitivity: 99.69% (1 incorrect)

Wolter wrote:http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =6406644V1

Looks like a nice lateral track.

JCBC

Hmmm, you know what, the tutorial says nothing about "other 'stuff' below the surface", except large, slow particle tracks, about which it says: This particle is so big that you can easily see it at the end of its track; it is larger than we expect to see in the Stardust Interstellar Dust ...

Jwb52z wrote:Another part of the calibration movies is that they are a test mechanism, so being TOLD they are calibration movies would defeat the point.

Then, IMHO, they need to make sure that negative CMs are clear of anything interesting below the surface in order for it to be a valid test.

JCBC

If that's the point, then it should say "This is a calibration movie; does it have a track or not?" otherwise people may not click on the "subtle" inclusions that the team seemed to be pleased that we were finding (see this post in the Updates forum ). For me personally, I will c...

I've had three negative CMs with interesting features that I have clicked on and gotten wrong. I do believe it is counter-productive to have negative CMs with such features that you would probably click on if it was in a real movie. I've posted mine in the "I answered a calibration movie right ...

Today I've see one more time the 5527523V1 movie. But now this movie is a calibration movie and my click on "No Tracks" have increase the count of my Calibration Movies Answered Correctly. Why? One explanation is that calibration have IDs which are the same as real movies. Therefore, you ...

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/myevents_viewer.php?id=7688037V1 There's only 7 agreements out of 168 views as of this post so I sure hope the rest were for bad focus... I would not have clicked bad focus on this one; the surface appears high enough in the focus bars. It is a subtle spot (so...

tim_yoda wrote: There were 43 agreements out of 180 views.

Tim

It still amazes me how low agreement rates are...

JCBC

tim_yoda wrote:http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... d=407264V1

Very good possibility! What's the agreement on it? Were you first?

JCBC

2 in 1036, so 1 in 518.