Some observations:

In my "My events" section of statistics, I've flagged five funny-looking movies. They've been viewed an average of 76 times each. The variance in the number of total viewings for each of my five movies is consistent with a standard deviation of sqrt(76) times, or about 8.7. Those of you who have watched more movies and flagged more events would be able to refine this estimate. The consistency with sqrt(N) statistics suggests that the movies are being assigned randomly and that the stardust team has not continued to upload significant amounts of new data, although I could be limited by my use of only my five candidate movies.

I can also estimate the total number of real movies viewed by the total number of volunteers. I downloaded the score rankings of the top 100 people, inserted my own ranking, and then put in the total number of volunteers (9484 as of this morning) with an estimate of a relatively small score for the last bunch of people. You can correct the score value by a factor to generate the number of real movies viewed (multiply by about 2.5). Then I integrated the total number of movies viewed by the volunteer pool to get an estimate of about 5.1e6 (5 million) real movies viewed. The top 100 scores account for about 472000 movies. The estimate is a bit uncertain, but it is at least 3.8 million movies viewed, since my own score and rank is known, and somewhere in the big middle of the distribution.

The large number of views per movie suggests that we are dealing with a much smaller set of real movies loaded so far into the database made available for volunteer viewing. That number of real scans is between 3.8e6/76 and 5.1e6/76

or 50000 to 67000.

Now -- the following are conclusions that I draw from these numbers. The stardust site estimates a bit less than 1 million total movie scans for the whole collector, in which there may be something like 45 real interstellar dust particles (their estimate). In the number of movies we are looking at here, that would mean we should find something like 2.2 to 3.0 real interstellar dust particle tracks. Now on average, each movie has been viewed like 76 times, so the stardust team has quite good statistics on each flagged movie. If my flagged rate to total real movie view rate is comparable to others, there ought to be something like 760 - 1020 movies flagged as potential tracks, each viewed 76(+/- 8.7) times. That number of viewings ought to give the stardust team plenty of ammunition to figure out which movies are worth looking at much more closely.

**Conclusions:**

1. This is a very small subset of the total amount of data to come.

2. We knew that already based on the post in the forum by the stardust team member showing the map of the collector already scanned and uploaded.

3. The team has good statistics on potential candidates out of this small data subset.

3a. The improvement on reliability of identifying potential candidate tracks will not improve significantly, unless there is something really weird about how the stardust team collates and interprets information about how many volunteers agree on potential candidates.

4. Volunteers should probably save their energy until a new batch of data becomes available.

5. Stardust team should make a new batch of data available or make some announcement about it.

6. The rate of potential track candidate movies identified should provide some quite good information about the amount of impurity dust and imperfections included in the aerogel collectors.

Comments?

Best regards,

Studebaker