"Unfair" calibration movies??!

[stephan.1969]

So by now, as I feel trained better, I will click on every tiny black dot, which is sharp on entire focal range.... if this is the purpose on those cm's I will do so.

[Jwb52z]

Yeah, it WAS a cm with a Track inserted.... would You have clicked on that, or not??

Actually, yes, I would have clicked on that as a track because I have made it a point to remember what the CM tracks tend to look like because they are always identical except in size.

[speck]

I would not have clicked on this one because it appears, to me, to come into focus ABOVE the surface of the gel. As I understand it, a real track would not appear that way.

I do recognize, however, that there are several CMs like this out there. I have taken to "skipping" them by reloading the microscope without marking the slide "no track" or "bad focus" (just hitting "virtual microscope" again). I know I don't get a point for + id of a CM but I'm uncomfortable clicking on a spot just because it is a CM and not because I actually think it looks like a track.

That said, has anyone else noticed that the CMs seem to have improved in quality? There are fewer of this kind: ones that appear to simply be black spots pasted onto a movie with little regard as to its relationship to the gel surface.

happy hunting everyone

speck

[PovAddict]

I'm right now having problems with the new test movies. I clicked on something that looked quite like a track, but it said it was incorrect and pointed out there was a track in a different place.

Here's the last frame:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/stardustathome. ... nn-038.jpg

Looks to me like a really long track at the left, starting at (599,126), and even a particle at the end of the track at (264,378); so that's where I clicked.

[Jwb52z]

I'm right now having problems with the new test movies. I clicked on something that looked quite like a track, but it said it was incorrect and pointed out there was a track in a different place.

Here's the last frame:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/stardustathome. ... nn-038.jpg

Looks to me like a really long track at the left, starting at (599,126), and even a particle at the end of the track at (264,378); so that's where I clicked.

Only the test you take before you can register should tell you where a track was in a CM. Something tells me you're not doing what you think you're doing. The real searching won't do that. You're only taking the test.

[PovAddict]

Only the test you take before you can register should tell you where a track was in a CM. Something tells me you're not doing what you think you're doing. The real searching won't do that. You're only taking the test.

I know that's the test <_<

[startrak]

Assume the "track" on CM 9680457V1 is the spot that is usually a spot on the lens of the 50 micron movies -- knew that would happen eventually.

[jsmaje]

Assume the "track" on CM 9680457V1 is the spot that is usually a spot on the lens of the 50 micron movies -- knew that would happen eventually.

Someone in the team obviously decided "Moe" hasn't yet had his last laugh.

[bmendez]

Assume the "track" on CM 9680457V1 is the spot that is usually a spot on the lens of the 50 micron movies -- knew that would happen eventually.

No. The track in that movie is just really, really small.

-Bryan

[startrak]

I would consider the track on 3350119V1 very, very small but can't find one like it on 9680457V1 after carefully studying it again. Movie 1190341V1 is a good example of the lens spot I'm referring to.

[jsmaje]

I would consider the track on 3350119V1 very, very small but can't find one like it on 9680457V1 after carefully studying it again. Movie 1190341V1 is a good example of the lens spot I'm referring to.

I really have to agree and sympathise with startrak. The CM track in 9680457V1 is little more than a fuzzy (at least 5 pixel-wide) blob throughout the focus range at almost exactly the same coordinates as the lens spot referred to as Moe on other 50µ movies (37,283), and can hardly be described as "... just really, really small", particularly when compared to the (2x2 pixels max) track of 3350119V1, also at about the same position.

OK, Moe (as in 1190341V1) is rather larger, more circumscribed and unvarying (and accompanied by Shemp & Joe in the top half). But I still can't help suspecting that startrak's blob at virtually the same position must have been a deliberate plant to trip us up (see previous message), as startrak implicitly acknowleges by saying "-- knew that would happen eventually".
Not, of course, to say there's anything wrong with that!

[startrak]

Right, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that -- keeps us on our toes.
In other words, "expect the unexpected".

[ScarabDrowner]

I guess I'm still trying to figure out what the admins want us to look for. I see what looks like an inclusion, but there's no "hole" on the surface of the gel that I can see, so I click no track, get the cm wrong. next one like that I see, inclusion with no hole, I click on it, get it wrong again. kinda hard to figure out what the parameters are if the only correct cms are the ones with obviously no inclusions or tracks of any kind. and even then it's 50/50 if it's right or not

[jsmaje]

I guess I'm still trying to figure out what the admins want us to look for. I see what looks like an inclusion, but there's no "hole" on the surface of the gel that I can see, so I click no track, get the cm wrong. next one like that I see, inclusion with no hole, I click on it, get it wrong again. kinda hard to figure out what the parameters are if the only correct cms are the ones with obviously no inclusions or tracks of any kind. and even then it's 50/50 if it's right or not

Also kinda hard for me (living in suburban Manchester, UK) to figure out who and why anyone would want to drown scarab beetles! What problem do they cause? Having been worshiped by the ancient Egyptians, surely they must have some redeeming features?

[elainekeefe]

I guess I'm still trying to figure out what the admins want us to look for. I see what looks like an inclusion, but there's no "hole" on the surface of the gel that I can see, so I click no track, get the cm wrong. next one like that I see, inclusion with no hole, I click on it, get it wrong again. kinda hard to figure out what the parameters are if the only correct cms are the ones with obviously no inclusions or tracks of any kind. and even then it's 50/50 if it's right or not

Also kinda hard for me (living in suburban Manchester, UK) to figure out who and why anyone would want to drown scarab beetles! What problem do they cause? Having been worshiped by the ancient Egyptians, surely they must have some redeeming features?

Sorry jsmaje and ScarabDrowner, couldn't resist.