Review: The 2 highest-rated candidates.

Discuss your experiences with and ideas about Stardust@home here.

Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods

squint
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:20 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Post by squint »

I would mark both as bad focus as I would like to see them later with better focus range. If "Bad Focus" button was not available I would have to mark them as "No Track" due to their close proximity to the surface.

Good Hunting... 8)

Siegfried
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 7:18 pm
Location: La Quinta, California
Contact:

Re: Review: The 2 highest-rated candidates.

Post by Siegfried »

DustBuster wrote:From the latest UPDATE, the following two FOV's contained the highest rated, good candidates for further study.

9471219V1 (let's call this one ALPHA) and
4836732V1 (this one can be BETA)

Examine each one. Did you click it? Did you not click it? Would you or would you not click it? Why?
Keep it strictly to your opinion and refrain from commenting on others.
Be honest, this is for science!
Absit iniuria verbis, but neither Alpha nor Beta look like anything. They both look like surface objects to me.

(Sorry, but I'm not about to catch up on twenty-eight pages of posts... This ensures a quick way for me to get back in the board.)
And God said: E = +mv^2 - Ze^2/r ...and there *WAS* light!

WANTED:
Dead or Alive
^-^
( ^ )
Schroedinger's Cat

legs2041
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:19 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Neither

Post by legs2041 »

Candidate B is the tempting one. But the non-track featurees next to the aparent track appear to be in exactly the same focus range as the 'track'. So they are all surface features albeit on a sloping piece of gel.
Michael

minerjp
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Alpha and Beta

Post by minerjp »

I would have clicked on both as possible tracks. I feel our job here is to identify "possible" tracks, and let the scientists running the program verify or not. I don't want to get hung up being too "picky"--if it looks like a calibration movie, click on it.

JP

zerocooldr
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:54 pm
Contact:

Both

Post by zerocooldr »

I think they're both very possible tracks. I agree these are real tracks.

DiamondGirl
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

To Click or Not To Click

Post by DiamondGirl »

I would consider both Alpha and Beta to be "Bad Focus" movies (as a number of other folks have also noted).

I think the key thought to remember is that, although the image looks flat to us, it could actually be angled (as noted in our training slides) and therefore one portion of the slide can be in focus but as you move the mouse that part could go below surface while another section is just coming into focus. Both of these appear to be this case to me.

The question is, does that also apply to 6355541V1 and 5507828V1?

I wasn't the first one to find these, but was excited by them when I did find them. In my opinion, since everything around them (on all sides) goes out of focus (or below surface), it would seem to rule out the possibility that this is a BAD FOCUS or angled slide. But the possibility did come into my head that there were elevated points around them making these appear to be below surface when in fact they were not.

What do YOU think? :)

Mississauga
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post by Mississauga »

Bad focus for both gets my vote.
- alec -

MDD DP 867, iBook G4/1.33, iMac G5/1.8

fjgiie
DustMod
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:47 am
Location: Hampton, SC, US

Bad Focus

Post by fjgiie »

No mercy on Alpha and Beta -

Alpha
Most of us would click Bad Focus if that dark doughnut were not laying there on the surface. The surface only comes into focus a few blue bars from the bottom.

Beta
Beta is worse than Alpha, because we never reach the surface with the focus. No track can be made in the vacuum of space above the Aerogel, which is air now.

DiamondGirl -
See post in Low Angled Tracks for a guess at your two movies

Thanks,

fjgiie

carrellk
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 12:13 am

Post by carrellk »

I wouldn't have clicked either movie.

Alpha looks to me like slightly slanting surface with nothin but surface features showing.

Beta to me looks like a surface with two levels and nothing but surface features showing.

I try to identify the surface and look for sub-surface structures. How anyone but the most click-happy person would have IDed these two beats me. If these represent good candidates, I've passed on dozens of them.

rcklein
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:48 am
Location: Jessup, Maryland, USA

Review: The 2 highest-rated candidates

Post by rcklein »

9471219V1 (let's call this one ALPHA)
4836732V1 (this one can be BETA

I did not "Track" click on either one. If I saw either movie, I would have clicked "Bad Focus".

Both movies have two "surfaces" (multiple focused particles at different focus levels).

The bottom-most "surface" on both movies is at the very bottom of "Focus Down", which is why (if I saw them) I would have clicked "Bad Focus".

Dorsal
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:51 pm

Post by Dorsal »

I would have clicked "Bad Focus
is a very noble frame of mind, but have you noticed there haven't been any mention of awards for "Top 10 People Who Spent Hundreds of Hours Identifying Crappy Focus Movies" - or "Top 2 "Bad Focus" Clickers"?
I think your time would be better appreciated if you click either "No Track" or click on the movie.
btw, Why are there so many "No Track" calibration movies anyway? There are easily 50 "no track" movies for every ONE that causes me to take an extra 3 seconds to make sure it contains "no track". Don't we already get more than enough practice looking at "nothings", when we are looking at the real movies?
And easily 95% of the movies with tracks are calibration movies anyway. Lessee - Score=2416 (cal movies) and maybe 100 movies clicked. Or we can use the 9122 real movies I've viewed to guess that nearly 99% of all the real movies viewed will be empty, "No Track" movies.
Deja view - that funny feeling you've seen this movie before!

oscar
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Bellefonte, PA

Post by oscar »

Yes for Alpha
Yes for Beta

I would have clicked on Alpha for sure. Very nice track.
Beta would have given me pause. It looks like a tilted tile with poor focus...on the other hand the object looks soooo much like a track that I would have clicked it to be on the safe side.

I have viewed over 5500 movies with 99.86% and 98.36% stats.
Not to brag, but I think I can recognize tracks fairly well.

If I am in doubt I click the object. I would hate to miss a particle track by being overly cautious 8)
What we think, we become. Buddha

GelDelve

Post by GelDelve »

Dorsal wrote:
I would have clicked "Bad Focus
is a very noble frame of mind, but have you noticed there haven't been any mention of awards for "Top 10 People Who Spent Hundreds of Hours Identifying Crappy Focus Movies" - or "Top 2 "Bad Focus" Clickers"?
I think your time would be better appreciated if you click either "No Track" or click on the movie.
btw, Why are there so many "No Track" calibration movies anyway? There are easily 50 "no track" movies for every ONE that causes me to take an extra 3 seconds to make sure it contains "no track". Don't we already get more than enough practice looking at "nothings", when we are looking at the real movies?
And easily 95% of the movies with tracks are calibration movies anyway. Lessee - Score=2416 (cal movies) and maybe 100 movies clicked. Or we can use the 9122 real movies I've viewed to guess that nearly 99% of all the real movies viewed will be empty, "No Track" movies.
There is also no recognition for the most real movies viewed, which is the only penalty for clicking on a bad focus movie. "Noble" is not a characteristic that should be condemned or considered as a negative trait.

Your suggestion is counterproductive. There are many bad focus movies that are being eliminated and rescanned. If we were to be so stupid as to follow your advice, these movies might never be rescanned nor would they be eliminated from being reviewed unneccesarily.

If you want to see your score elevated by never checking bad focus, then you will never see it happen here. No one who is devoted toward the goal of finding actual dust trails cares about scores, except as a learning experience.

There is also no basis for your claim that calibrated movies are 50 to 1 no track to track movies. In fact, I believe that tracked movies are in the majority, but they are certainly not anywhere close to your statement.

There is also no basis that "easily 95% of the movies with tracks are calibration movies." It could more likely be said that the percent is 100.

I have viewed more movies than you have, but that makes me no more an expert than you are.

elainekeefe
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:38 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by elainekeefe »

And to add my two-cents' worth....With my compulsive counting disorder (lol) I actually kept track of the track and no-track cal. movies for a while. After about 100, I added up each column, and they were pretty much even. They are very random, so at one time you might get many more than the other. I have had times when I watched 20 real movies with no cal's and other times when 16 out of 20 were cal's.

I also agree about the bad-focus movies. If everyone clicked "no track" a closer look might never be taken...and one of them might be the one!

katkolling
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:10 pm

both

Post by katkolling »

I would have clicked both of these, but I'm just a newbie what do I know...

Post Reply