Post your MovieID if better rated than this
Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods
Post your MovieID if better rated than this
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?}
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.
How I wonder which to trust!
From stars above the world you fell!
Buried like treasure in aerogel.
Let it never be said that your **** retentive attention to detail never yielded positive results. - Loki, Dogma
movie 42117 -> 32/64 -> 50%
"The Earth is the cradle of mankind, but one cannot live in the cradle forever."
~Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
~Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
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.
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.....
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.....
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%
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.
How I wonder which to trust!
From stars above the world you fell!
Buried like treasure in aerogel.
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.....
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.
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.
See, I doubted that one too, but I didn't want to be picking on Mantis.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.
After all, HE isn't responsible for the other people's comfirmations.
Ok JOC, Now I really will be quiet... Maybe...
Well he said himself that he wasn't sure about it: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.
Having said that though, personally I'm not so sure there is a problem. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.mantis! wrote:I am a bit concerned that 38843 may have a focus problem
-
- DustMod
- Posts: 694
- Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 8:12 pm
- Location: Horsetown, USA
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!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.
No dessert for you- ONE MONTH!