the moon wrote:... the real question is, how do we tell likely inclusions from tracks?
Exactly. My confusion arises from the latest updated determinations. I just hope the new tutorial guidelines will cover all the various issues involved in deciding 'liklihood'.
For example, that of multiple 'tracks'. Presumably, according to your criteria (the moon), you would have voted against 8492127V1
on that perfectly understandable basis (or would you?), yet they've passed it at cut 1 for some reason (could it be they consider one track might still be genuine / that particles could come in groups / that they fragment on impact and embed without leaving tell-tale signs....?? Who knows? It would be nice to be
Frankly, I'm surprised there are so many cut 1's now. The great majority of mine (including 8492127V1) I would happily have seen dismissed as inclusions, given what we've learned about identifying them so far. Before the update the great majority of my 'hits' reviewed were judged "probable inclusion(s)", and I think that was most people's experience. Now it's more like 50/50 (30 possible IS vs. 31 inclusions in my case)!
Hence my confusion. Could it be the three undergraduates they've recently recruited to help out that are playing safe, or that they think their original determinations may have been over-hasty? As far as I'm concerned, I'm still clicking on the same sort of things.
No conclusion other than confusion on inclusions just yet.......