Post your MovieID if better rated than this

Archived here are older posts which are no longer relevant or were redundant.

Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods

JOC
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:59 pm

Post your MovieID if better rated than this

Post by JOC »

Okay, thought it might be nice at this stage for people to post the details of leading candidates.

So... ONLY POST IF YOUR MOVIE BEATS THE LAST ENTRY IN THIS THREAD
-- for a simple minded ranking, let's use the Number Of Agreements (followed by the % of Agreements by Total Viewings)

I'll put the ball rolling with(definitely not the best, I'd expect)...

#42605 20 agreements (=28.57% of the Total Viewings)


So let's hear if you beat 20 (or... if you have 20 and beat the 28.57% )....

As soon as someone beats this, you've got to beat their numbers....
....look at the last entry in the thread.


[NB to be clear on this simplistic method, I arrived at the 28.57% from...
20 agreements = 28.57% of the 70 Total Viewings(currently) on movie #42605]

*** UPDATE: Please, just brief reports in this thread.... let's leave the comments & questions in other threads ***

{To MOD's: maybe a stickie if this thread is useful until official tables are possible?}
Last edited by JOC on Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
Twinkle, twinkle, little dust!
How I wonder which to trust!
From stars above the world you fell!
Buried like treasure in aerogel.

KarMann
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:05 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by KarMann »

For sheer numbers, movie 41362 at 27/75, for 36%;
for percentage, movie 42400 at 25/61, for 40.98%.
Let it never be said that your **** retentive attention to detail never yielded positive results. - Loki, Dogma

geckzilla
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:05 am

Post by geckzilla »

41971 = 28/64 = 43.75%

Not sure why though. seems like I've found better ones.

mwhiz
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA

Post by mwhiz »

movie 42117 -> 32/64 -> 50%
"The Earth is the cradle of mankind, but one cannot live in the cradle forever."
~Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

msf413
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:20 pm

Post by msf413 »

FTF 46416, 34/60 = 56.66%
Matt

desdema
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:58 pm

Post by desdema »

47027 -- 43/67 = 64.18%

msf413
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:20 pm

Post by msf413 »

KarMann wrote:For sheer numbers, movie 41362 at 27/75, for 36%;
for percentage, movie 42400 at 25/61, for 40.98%.

Holy $&#%!! I count 9 tracks in 42400! Imagine if all those turned out to be actual stardust... whoever was FTF better start coming up with a list of names. :)
Matt

What's even more amazing (and worrisome) is that with 9 tracks that I would say are pretty clear, only 36% of the people who viewed it saw anything.

icebike

Post by icebike »

We interrupt this thread to point out the obvious...

None of these look like the training movies or the bulk of the CMs.

So, does this mean the TMs and CMs are not to scale, or not representative of what is being found? (Remember, the dustbunnies had to photoshop the training movies and calibration movies, because there were no tracks found at the time).

Or does it mean that nobody yet has found an actual track?




We now return you to your regularly scheduled competition.....

JOC
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:59 pm

Post by JOC »

msf413 and icebike, your points are well made, but, respectfully, maybe we can keep this thread purely for some numbers.

Let people make their own conclusions, and/or then everyone can comment on the significance[or lack thereof ;-)] in the profusion of commentary threads ;-) ;-) ;-)

Any advances, then, on desdema's:
#47027 -- 43/67 = 64.18%
Twinkle, twinkle, little dust!
How I wonder which to trust!
From stars above the world you fell!
Buried like treasure in aerogel.

mantis!
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:54 pm

Post by mantis! »

try 16490 with 39/49=79%

let me just throw in my second highest one too, 38843 with 41/61=67%

I am almost positive 16490 is a track. I am a bit concerned that 38843 may have a focus problem, but I'd rather mark it and be wrong than not mark it and be wrong. What do you all think?

icebike

Post by icebike »

mantis! wrote:try 16490 with 39/49=79%
...
I am almost positive 16490 is a track.
I can see why you might have been tempted to thing so, but see the thread on slanted surfaces.

I would have studied 16490 to death, and then I would have clicked no track.

ALL of the lower corner comes into focus at the same time as the particle. Its a slanted surface, and the lower right corner is the farthest down hill.

That's my story, and I'm stuck with it.

Ok JOC, I'll STFU now.....

nick
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:09 am
Location: Switzerland

Post by nick »

Since mantis!'s highest score seems to be somewhat doubted and his next highest is 67%, I'm going to go ahead and give my best track candidate...

Movie ID 38843: 41 agreements out of 61 viewings = 67.21%

Again you could argue that the focus is slightly off (just above and to the left of the 'track' there's a very small spot that seems to be almost at the same depth as the 'track') but just at the end of the focus range the 'track' is still getting more and more focused and the spot just starts to unfocus, so I'm pretty sure it's genuine. Like people have said though, it's somewhat worrying that there haven't been more agreements.

EDIT: Ha, I should learn to pay more attention. It's the same as mantis!'s second track. Stupid me.

icebike

Post by icebike »

nick wrote:
Again you could argue that the focus is slightly off ...

EDIT: Ha, I should learn to pay more attention. It's the same as mantis!'s second track. Stupid me.
See, I doubted that one too, but I didn't want to be picking on Mantis.

After all, HE isn't responsible for the other people's comfirmations.

Ok JOC, Now I really will be quiet... Maybe...

nick
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:09 am
Location: Switzerland

Post by nick »

icebike wrote:See, I doubted that one too, but I didn't want to be picking on Mantis.

After all, HE isn't responsible for the other people's comfirmations.
Well he said himself that he wasn't sure about it:
mantis! wrote:I am a bit concerned that 38843 may have a focus problem
Having said that though, personally I'm not so sure there is a problem. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

DustBuster
DustMod
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 8:12 pm
Location: Horsetown, USA

Post by DustBuster »

icebike wrote: ALL of the lower corner comes into focus at the same time as the particle. Its a slanted surface, and the lower right corner is the farthest down hill.
I'd have the same take on this one- but we're no experts- who knows, maybe it's a new kind of spore... the Mantis Mold!
No dessert for you- ONE MONTH!

Post Reply