Is The Science In Jeopardy?

This forum is for discussing space science topics related to Stardust@home.

Moderator: DustMods

icebike

Re: Is The Science In Jeopardy?

Post by icebike »

Starzack wrote:Unless it can be shown that cheating is impossible or that it would have negligible impact upon the science results, I feel that the program should be shut down until the issue of cheating is properly addressed.
Starzack:

Relax. Take a deep breath. Calm down. Get back on your meds.

All the Stardust team wants from this is a list of movies that SEVERAL people marked as having dust.

Let me repeat: A List of movies MARKED BY SEVERAL PEOPLE.

If you get sloppy and click your way through 10,000 images, you will likely be the only one clicking the bulk of them.
They won't get enough votes to draw any attention.

It really doesn't matter. In the end there will be a minimum vote thresh-hold required to draw the attention of the scientists.
Each movie is reviewed by many many volunteers.

The concept of "Cheating" does not apply.
Movies will be selected for further study by the WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, the number of clicks.

You can run your score up as high as you want. You get a warm fuzzy feeling for having a high score.
But its like pissing yourself in a black wool suit. Nobody else will notice.
Doesn't matter to the Science of this project.

Random clickers, or those that look for calibration movies and act differently on those, can not influence the result.
You can not create a dust particle by clicking a mouse.
The science is not in jeopardy. This is not a video game.
agurney
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:07 pm

Post by agurney »

Lomic wrote:I'm more concerned that a majority aren't paying attention. Check out these two of the sixteen I've flagged so far.

First one has 10 of 18 Agreement:

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=41876

Second one has 1 of 22 Agreement:

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=43496

They are the same size, roughly same position and have little or nothing else around them - only difference is the first is slightly darker. Of the rest of mine which all look very similar, only one other has Agreement above a 3. I'm really anxious for them to release *REAL* movies of what they are and aren't looking for, rather than the controlled tutorial movies.
I'm sorry, I don't see any tracks in either of those, where do you see them? Anything that did start to look like a track has several other artifacts that have same behavior.
gavin42g
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 4:08 pm
Location: Kelowna (-ish), BC, Canada

Post by gavin42g »

Jwb52z wrote:My whole opinion on the scoring and specificity and sensitivity is that it shows me just how much I suck at doing this project. I'm only right about 40 percent of the time in the test images. I am starting to wonder if I should bother to continue.
I was doing even worse at the beginning, something like 0%/33% after half a dozen calibrations. I guess I was rusty, since it had been a few weeks since I did the tutorial. I was excited to get started, so I didn't bother to retake it. So, after thinking about quitting, I retook the tutorial.

Turns out, I was under the impression that tracks would be in focus at the surface. After clearing that up, I proceeded to breeze through about 200 more calibration movies with only two incorrect: one because I saw something interesting in one that was "empty" and one just now because I missed a tiny track because I was tired, which is why I'm quitting for the night.

So take another look at the tutorial, click through a few more movies, and then decide if the project's for you.
icebike

Post by icebike »

agurney wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't see any tracks in either of those, where do you see them? Anything that did start to look like a track has several other artifacts that have same behavior.
Take the one above. Use the micron scale at the bottom, and eye-ball in about 270 to 300 microns in from the left, maybe 4o microns up from the bottom.

Keep your eye on that spot. Pull the focus down beginning at the middle of the focus bar. You will see a spot getting SMALLER while all other spots are getting FATTER.

Its always the Odd-Spot-Out, the one that acts differently that is a suspect for marking. Some move left while everything else moves right. Some stay crisp while others fuzz out of focus.

And, most of the time, the real tracks can't be seen from above the surface level. (although this is not always true - some are big enough to show from above the surface as a fuzzy patch that only comes into focus as you go deeper).
agurney
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:07 pm

Post by agurney »

icebike wrote: http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=41876

Take the one above. Use the micron scale at the bottom, and eye-ball in about 270 to 300 microns in from the left, maybe 4o microns up from the bottom.

Keep your eye on that spot. Pull the focus down beginning at the middle of the focus bar. You will see a spot getting SMALLER while all other spots are getting FATTER.

Its always the Odd-Spot-Out, the one that acts differently that is a suspect for marking. Some move left while everything else moves right. Some stay crisp while others fuzz out of focus.

And, most of the time, the real tracks can't be seen from above the surface level. (although this is not always true - some are big enough to show from above the surface as a fuzzy patch that only comes into focus as you go deeper).
I see it, but wouldn't interpret it as a track. The difference in opinion is enough to justify marking it though.
templar781
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:19 am
Location: St. Petersburg Florida
Contact:

Post by templar781 »

Just my two cents. Yes it does appear as if there are people on the site who are going through the movies as fast as they can. But I don't agree that the speed readers are hurting the project. There are several safety features built into the project. First of all is the repetition of the samples. Through the web these samples are being examined at least several dozen times which greatly reduces the chances of something being overlooked. A second safegaurd is the tedious nature of the work. Unless you are dedicated and interested in science you just won't be able to sustain interest in such a tedious activity. The speed readers may be able to hold on for a couple days but watch what happens in two or three weeks. The speed readers will definately tail off.
Besides the main purpose of this project is to narrow down millions of samples to a manageable size. Giving the projects scientists a chance to do real science on these particles as soon as possible. Keep up the good work and don't get discouraged by so called cheaters, the real science will shine through and the garbage will be sorted out by a sound scientific process.
Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is. - Vince Lombardi
djellison
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:11 am
Contact:

Post by djellison »

Perhaps it would be better to rank not by volume, but by accuracy instead?

Doug
ToSeek
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:40 am
Contact:

Re: Is The Science In Jeopardy?

Post by ToSeek »

icebike wrote:You can run your score up as high as you want. You get a warm fuzzy feeling for having a high score.
But its like pissing yourself in a black wool suit. Nobody else will notice.
Doesn't matter to the Science of this project.
If it bogs down the server so that people give up and go away (as I did yesterday afternoon), it will.
If you're going to be just like everyone else, what's the point in existing?
Post Reply