Not everybody is cheating??!!

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

Moderator: DustMods

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

Movig topic

Post by DustBuster »

Moving this thread to Community forum.

Thank you.

Orion_0169
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:17 pm

Post by Orion_0169 »

Jwb52z wrote:Card countingis cheating because it involves keeping track of every card that has been played. Very few people can do that in their heads. That makes it an unfair advantage.
Which gets to exactly what I was saying. Why should someone who can THINK and REMEMBER better than others be called a cheater?

Might as well say that people who don't wear glasses are cheaters in hide-and-go-seek.
Je ne peux pas regarder la Mer sans me demander qui vit au-delà de cela.

stardust1
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:08 pm
Location: Germany

Post by stardust1 »

Orion_0169 wrote:
Jwb52z wrote:Card countingis cheating because it involves keeping track of every card that has been played. Very few people can do that in their heads. That makes it an unfair advantage.
Which gets to exactly what I was saying. Why should someone who can THINK and REMEMBER better than others be called a cheater?

Might as well say that people who don't wear glasses are cheaters in hide-and-go-seek.
Hi Orion_0169,
As you might have noticed, I´ve been allways very critical about all that discussion. Some of my posts in that case I´ve deleted or edited or others did for me (FAQ) in the meantime.
Let me describe my own, personal conclusion about that unholy matter:
1. There is no cheating at all and never was. Those 6 did it the wrong way, they didn´t cheat at all, maybe themselves which would have left no impact to the projets´ effort. They should have been warned before they were kicked off.
2. Some people seem to need a virtual cheater to prove their own insufficiance against and to demonstrate their superior morality. You won´t get rid of them because that´s human, that´s "system immanent". Your insistence on that case is just food to them.
[Hey mods - I think this would be the right moment to move this thread to the Archive?]
3. I personally realized that this discussion degraded to be on the fringes in the meantime. Thus I concentrate my skills to the incredible experience the concept of stardust@home is growing to: Linking not only machines (like seti) but linking human brains, worldwide, on one aim. Hey, thats a never seen event!
4. Thus, in my eyes, there is no need or any effort to continue that discussion because it has proved to be not helpful!

Hey, btw, do you know the card game "Skat" (a specific german and there very popular game). Three people gaming, one takes the game, the two others controvert. Equal if gamer or counterpart: those who did not count all cards allready gamed (and imagine which remained) will loose. This card game is said to be comparable to chess.

P.S. Sorry about my "quick and dirty"- translation. If something was not clear, please ask.

Thanks,

stardust1
Wir leben in einer Zeit vollkommener Mittel und verworrener Ziele. (Albert Einstein)

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

Post by DustBuster »

Rather than risk another thead appearing on the topic, I was leaving this ONE open, until further notice (and why it was moved it to the Community forum);
It will give anyone still inclined the opportunity to give thier comment.

harviej
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:09 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Post by harviej »

Reading about what the analysts said about cheating, I could not help notice the use of quotation marks around that perjorative word. The reinstatement of ranking was a recognition of innocence of intent. I assume that Berkely being a University and all, and science being the key, there was a lot of thought that went into what we are all doing. I further assume that there are several individuals viewing each movie and the combined results are what is valued, not the individual "I see a track!" or "no track" or "out of focus" (after all are'nt we all out of focus at some time or another?) I also further assume that the point of analyzing the top "performers" was to find ways to make the rest of us better.
In other words, a few of the cheaters were found to be merely inventive in how they attacked the task. I assume a study of the lowest scorers will yield similary instructive results.
I seem to be assuming a lot here but hey, I'm not a scientist so assumptions arent as dangerous for me.

Moogie
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:01 pm

Post by Moogie »

This whole discussion about cheating has really scared me. I only joined a couple of days ago. Quite quickly I realized that on my dial up system the calibration movies come up really quickly and the others take longer to load. After reading about the "cheaters" I now feel I have to race through the calibration movies incase I am being judged. I joined this out of a desire to contribute to an exciting project. Now I can honestly say that I am reacting to the way the movies load; scientific, but not in the way it was intended. You know I am not a scientist and so am maybe being very simplistic, but I just wish there was not a scoring system and certainly not a prize. Ok maybe we have to be checked to see if we are up to scratch, but I really think they are overdoing the quality control. The pressure is on to score and that is so wrong. :?

Wolter
DustMod
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 2:23 am
Location: Enkhuizen, the Netherlands

Post by Wolter »

The only one who is putting the presure on the score is yourself.
Simply look at each movie with a fresh eye, try to focus it.
No clear surface focus, not sure what is where, click bad focus.
Good focus but can see anything like a track, click no track.
Good focus and something in there that might be a track, click in the movie on the location of the object.

That all there is to it. There is no way that when you work in this way your method of working will be marked as suspicious.

When new, keep an eye on your score. Use this to notice any miss. If you miss a movie, go back to it and try to find out what you might have missed (some track examples are very tiny) or check the object you click on again. Tracks keep in focus while going deeper into the aerogel.
Just dusting... Image

Moogie
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:01 pm

Post by Moogie »

Thank you Wolter. I suppose my problem is that I am very aware of my score and I know my 2 errors so far have been because I was rushing the calibration movies. You are quite right: I should just do it systematically and not worry about being labelled a "cheat". I don't really believe that anyone would have joined this exciting project with cheating in mind, just a sense of adventure.

bmendez
Stardust@home Team
Stardust@home Team
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:28 am
Location: UC Berkeley Space Sciences Lab
Contact:

Post by bmendez »

The term "cheater" was not originally used by us, but rather by someone here in the forum who was concerned that some people seemed to be getting very high scores very quickly. Unfortunately, the term continued to be used in the absence of a different term. That was probably a mistake on our part.

As we stated originally in the FAQs, there was little evidence that some people were trying to artificially inflate their score by focusing only on calibration movies. It was my opinion that such an endeavor was not only pointless, but unlikely to be happening in any widespread way, and I stated that I felt the ongoing conversation about it was fruitless.

When we did an analysis of how people were viewing the real movies verses the calibration movies, we found a very consistent trend with a few outliers. The outliers had high scores but were spending more time on calibration movies than on real movies in a systematic and significant way. We found that several of those people had misunderstandings about how they should be searching.

If you simply treat calibration and real movies the same and conduct the search in a relaxed fashion, you need not have any worries. It was only 8 of the top 200 who were making those errors in search methods.

And we have learned our lesson. When we do future spot checks, we'll consult with any outliers before making any assumptions as to their motives.

Thanks as always for your help,
Bryan
"I am made from the dust of the stars, and the oceans flow in my veins"
- RUSH

stardust1
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:08 pm
Location: Germany

Post by stardust1 »

Hi Bryan,
Thank you so much for that post!
-stardust1
Wir leben in einer Zeit vollkommener Mittel und verworrener Ziele. (Albert Einstein)

Pollux.Castor
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:05 am

Post by Pollux.Castor »

Jwb52z wrote:Card countingis cheating because it involves keeping track of every card that has been played. Very few people can do that in their heads. That makes it an unfair advantage.
The Casinos consider card counting cheating because it helps the players win more often. It is information that is available to you, and in everything you do you should evaluate all available information to make your decision.

Post Reply