How the top scorers get those scores.

[Cyphers1011]

Just thought I would add my thoughts on this.
I was hoping to get to the top 100 so I could get the kewl certificate before it was just impossibly difficult to do so. Never got my email telling me this whole deal had started so I got to do my first run at viewing yesterday. Rather bummed about that. It was super fun. I got through about 450 real movies.

Now that I am done ranting on my own behalf, I do have to say that I take FOREVER to view the slides that are decent focus because I believe, as it seems many people are, that these particles may be VERY VERY small and not big like the calibration movie tracks. Being an amateur scientist, I find that I would rather take my time and find the tracks that others have possibly missed. Hopefully we will all make a good impression and do a super job so that other companies will see that they can get free public support for their science and provide more opportunities like this one. Just wanted to make sure we don't forget the really uber kewl scientific opportunity this is, while we rush to be number 1.

Thanks for listening, Di

[Orion_0169]

Di,

I suggested in another thread that it would be neat if the movies were in batches (30 or 40 thousand at a time) and with each new batch, the scores were reset. A cumulative could still be kept, but resetting them every so often would be much more encouraging for late-starters and such.

[zuben el genubi]

I was thinking if there where no rankings.
Would that decrease the amount of people signing up to find particles?
Personally I wouldn't mind if the ranking formula changed.
And when I think of it,I wouldn't mind taking the test again and start from zero.

[Norilan]

I'm on dial-up. I wonder how many are? Reading your posts I can imagine you must be screaming... but while I am waiting for a movie to load, I pet the dog, clean the turtle aquarium, and fix something to snack on. Actually in some instances I find only a 15 or 20 second lag between carefully scanning an image until the next is ready, just enough time to recalibrate my eyes.

I'm also on dial up & doing one movie at a time. I've tried doing something else online (such as proofreading at the Distributed Proofreading site), but that just slows both down too much. It usually takes just the movies anywhere from 30-90 seconds to load, but I've found that it often depends on the time of day I'm here.

I usually try to use the second movie's loading time as a guide for how long to search on the first movie. Of course, if it's obvious that it's either nothing there or a calibration movie, then I click it & open up a PC board game set I have. A few turns at Dominoes or what not usually helps pass the time needed to load nearly two movies

I don't mind the rankings- I know I'll never get into the top 1000-- only because I'm up against everyone with superfast internet connections and those who are doing multiples of movies.... I just enjoy helping to (hopefully) discover a particle that no one else on the Earth has ever seen before


...having said that

Calibration Movies Answered Correctly 66
Calibration Movies Answered Incorrectly 3
Your Overall Score: 63
Total Real Movies Viewed: 209
Your Rank: 2694 out of 8392
Specificity: 100%
Sensitivity: 92%

I did have a nice 100%/100% going and then I made one mistake, accidently clicked when I shouldn't have on another, & had my internet go wonky on the last.

[Orion_0169]

I've mentioned this before, I think the biggest issue here is people looking for particles (notice the button called No TRACK). And when people are below surface, when they see a dot in focus they assume it is a particle.

They ignore the fundamental issue of how it GOT there, if there was no layers above also in focus.

As obvious as some of them are at least some of those callibration movies show the track in the layers below the surface, as opposed to a sudden spec in focus.

Once again, if we HAVE found a thousand candidates in these 40 000 movies, they would hardly need our help, being so common.

Side note, I'd like to see a button for "Interesting Artifact"
Also one for REALLY "Empty" movies, to be removed from the list sooner.

[tshoulihane]

The rankings give an impression of how the project is progressing, which for me is interesting.

[Norilan]

An 'Interesting artifact' button would be a great addition!

I just wish that users of the Firefox browser would see that button confirming their choice after viewing a movie, rather than just taking us to the next movie.

Ah well...

[Gael]

Hey gang,

I made it under 1000! I want a certificate.

I am proud!

Here's my stats:

Calibration Movies Answered Correctly 230
Calibration Movies Answered Incorrectly 16
Your Overall Score: 214
Total Real Movies Viewed: 637
Your Rank: 998 out of 8481
Specificity: 99%
Sensitivity: 88%

Those small tracks get me every time. I'm trying to work on that.

[Gael]

To Buttorworth: Here is what I have posted in the forums:

" Did you ever think it was possible. that persons may display observational characteristics that are different?

Please READ. "On another thread this evening I found a note about finding so-called 'cheaters', which is apparently why I was removed from the top 15 rankings after much hard work. Here is my reply to Buttorworth:

"After viewing several thousand movies, I became frustrated with poor response time from the pc for loading the next movie. I would wait and wait. While waiting, and having plenty of time to look, I noticed that there are splash circlets, of very light , VERY light shades of grey. Concentric circles, irregular. I am observant and have a good eye. Like a stone throne into water, particles are leaving ripples as shades of grey in what we see online. Would we could see color! Very subtle ripples of grey, but there. I discovered that upon the instant of seeing the initial phase of a movie, I could evaluate presence of splash/ripples and thus a PARTICLE, and reject it or explore it. My specificity is 99.93%, and the other about 95%. I do not waste time on waiting for the next movie to fully load when I do not see the tell-tale ripple. I click No-Track and move on. I am too quick and I do press no-track if I am not fully engaged./distracted That happens. I accept it and move on, although I slap my head and yell 'D'oh!'!. By profession I am a tester. I am trained to look for in/consistencies and discrepancies in results. I am very good at what I do. This is not cheating, but something you did not expect. Someone who can instantly spot potential for a track, and who knows immediately when there is no potential - or when there IS.

Sincerely yours, Gailod

[simon]

A hacker perhaps.

[minkiemink]

I too was removed from the top 55 Gael, after much hard work and a lot of viewings. I saw the same patterns of concentric shades of grey as you did and proceeded the exact same way. There was no cheating involved. I work with very tiny objects and patterns for a living.

I looked at my movies one window at a time, but I too saw patterns that allowed me to discern a possible track very quickly. Now I have been penalized, apparently for being quicker than others. Weird. Prior to the removal, I requested that they do away with the CM's and rankings and show only real movies for those who have viewed over several thousand. I had gotten up to 9000 + views with many possible tracks clicked on.

Today I have started over with the same dedication. I have seen 1080 movies, and again, clicked a few times on what might actually be dust. Still looking forward to see if I have truly found any. As I posted last week, rankings are incidental, from what I have seen, pretty much all of us here...myself included... are here to find dust. Just disheatening to be accused because I do not fit the paradigm.

Cheers,

Minkie

[jsmaje]

I too was removed from the top 55 Gael, after much hard work and a lot of viewings. I saw the same patterns of concentric shades of grey as you did and proceeded the exact same way. There was no cheating involved.

No cheating, perhaps, but you are obviously unaware that the concentric shades of grey are due to the lower resolution of calibration movies with known tracks. You have to click these to keep 'scoring', but you aren't finding anything that isn't already known to be there, which is what you should be concentrating on. This scoring business has clearly confused a lot of people.

[trainspotter]

Now that Minkie and Gael have said that I had a look. They are right. The ripples are there, very interesting. Wherever there are ripples there are tracks. Exciting! Seems logical to me that the calibration and non-calibration movies would both show the same ripples. Why wouldn't someone look into the validty of that? Why discount out of hand?

[minkiemink]

I suggested that they do away with the scoring early on. The scoring causes confusion, the calibration movies themselves are confusing because they only show one form of tracking, and after a certain point, they also take away from searching as you have to get through them to look at real movies.

[DustBuster]

Seems logical to me that the calibration and non-calibration movies would both show the same ripples. Why wouldn't someone look into the validty of that? Why discount out of hand?

The calibration movies were 'created' with image processing software that causes the pixelating artifacts on those movies, whether positive or negative for a track. The discussion of these and how recognizable they are is posted elsewhere in the forum.

Regards.