Stardust@home Suggestion Thread

[sub212]

I'd suggest that all clickers that find a real piece of dirt should be included in the publications, after all, they are the first 25 or so out of 6 billion humans to see this piece of (useless except for science) dirt.

[Klemek]

Hi, I've just found out that on "my events" page, that some movies are listed twice. It'n not a serious problem, but my suggestion is not to send the same movie twice for review to single person.
Hope you can understand my english

[Nikita]

Hi Klemek!

Your English is great! I believe the movies are sent as random, so there is no control on that. The good news is that you found the same thing twice! Please be patient and enjoy your dusting!

Nikita

[Crow T Robot]

With minor changes to its HTML code, Stardust could display neatly-drawn horizontal and vertical rulers. Here's what they look like (full size visible at http://www.flickr.com/photos/49669831@N00/245290044/):



Shall I propose these to the Stardust overlords? Mostly they just look pretty, but they would also make it easy to describe the location of subtle features.

[Klemek]

With minor changes to its HTML code, Stardust could display neatly-drawn horizontal and vertical rulers. Here's what they look like (full size visible at http://www.flickr.com/photos/49669831@N00/245290044/):



Shall I propose these to the Stardust overlords? Mostly they just look pretty, but they would also make it easy to describe the location of subtle features.

Great idea, so simple and usefull!

[Mr_Zeno]

I'd like to see a button that says "No track but has an interesting feature"

The reason is that I clicked on something I thought was an impact line of a slow small object, just to find out that it was a callibration movie. I lost my 100% because of it, even though I still think it was interesting I hate getting things wrong

Jason

[Mighty Pete]

Crow T Robot:

Personally I'd just like them to stop resizing the images on the browser end. If then there is room add what you have there.

Still has to fit on a 640 X 480 screen though. Personally I think less is better. There is enough room there that no image resizing is necessary.

[Howie]

Hi to All,

Don't know if it is just luck or the team listened to one of my posts about the time I spend wasting on CM's,,, and out of focus,,,but...........

The past two days in the couple hours a day I have to do this,,,

I have had less cm's and way more real movies and the ones I clicked on were already viewd by others and I was not first,,,except a couple,,,but
nice to know I am not the only one looking at these as clicks,,,some have 100 to 5 views??? Plus!!!

I lost a hole point on Cm'S in 2 days but I don't care...I take chances on strange and or interesting movies and not concerned with my score!!!

But, Not to Brag, really,,, I am ranked about 290 and have viewed over many movies and missed 60 since the start...

I take the chance!!!

Howie

[DiamondGirl]

Just some thoughtful suggestions on stats that would be interesting:

On average, what characteristics of positive finds have been most common?

How long do we anticipate the project will take to complete given the current progress rate?

How many searchers have been discovered to be just "clicking through" based on the control movies? Has this been effective?

What's the overall average % of correct vs. incorrect scores on the control movies?

Out of the tracks that passed first cut, what's the average ratio of total views vs. people who marked it as a track? (IE: 500 views / 100 confirms)

[Alessandro Freda]

A suggestion to the stardust team:
since seems a standard procedure, after found a track in a movie, to refresh the "my event" page in order to see

1 - if I'm the first
2 - how "popular" is this track (also to have a istant feedback on our job precision)

should be useful to show, within the next movie, the my events data (only related to the previous movie)

This will be a facility for the user and can reduce the server load due to "my events" page refresh, that for many users will become a bit large.

If some users like suprise and to not want to see these info, a flag in the user account page could be added to enable/disable this feature (disabled by default).

Regards
Alessandro

[katkolling]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned in the preceeding fourteen pages - it occurred to me today that I do a lot of eye roaming around when looking at an image. I can't see it all closely at once. If one-fourth of the image were presented, I could keep it in my focus without having to look elsewhere and lose a little context each time. I probably do 4-5 runs over the VM focus for each movie as I id areas of interest and redo them. Less of this would be necessary if I were looking at just a smaller area.

[DustBuster]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned in the preceeding fourteen pages - it occurred to me today that I do a lot of eye roaming around when looking at an image. I can't see it all closely at once. If one-fourth of the image were presented, I could keep it in my focus without having to look elsewhere and lose a little context each time. I probably do 4-5 runs over the VM focus for each movie as I id areas of interest and redo them. Less of this would be necessary if I were looking at just a smaller area.

Hi Kat.

Have you tried incresing your screen resolution? Try 1280X1024 or ?(depending on your monitor/graphics card capability).

[katkolling]

It's 1024x768. I don't think changing it to what you suggest would present an image one-fourth as big...

[DustBuster]

You are correct. That setting would only be about 2/3 the size of what you are viewing.
If you were originally viewing 800X600 or 640X480, the difference would be much more noticeable.

[jsmaje]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned in the preceeding fourteen pages - it occurred to me today that I do a lot of eye roaming around when looking at an image. I can't see it all closely at once. If one-fourth of the image were presented, I could keep it in my focus without having to look elsewhere and lose a little context each time. I probably do 4-5 runs over the VM focus for each movie as I id areas of interest and redo them. Less of this would be necessary if I were looking at just a smaller area.

You're absolutely right that the eye and brain can't take in everything at once, and that scanning quadrants in a systematic way is the best way to go. You can then take another close look at anything of potential interest, and finally make a holistic assessment (repeatedly focussing up & down can help spot deep features behaving differently from surface ones, even in one's peripheral vision).

An astronomer on this forum who is used to viewing astrophotos said exactly that (sorry can't find the link - the so-called Search facility on these forums is pretty-much useless, as also pointed out by others before). As an ex-doctor, that was the way I was taught to scan an X-ray, and as an ex-private pilot, that was the way to scan the sky out of the cockpit window (the four most vital cockpit instruments were also scanned systematically, though in a T-shape in that case).

It's a matter of training yourself to do it that way, and once in the habit it becomes instinctive. Since there are already going to be at least 700,000 focus movies to be looked at by the time they're finished, I don't think multiplying that number by four would really be much help.

And by the way, from the Tech FAQ: "We recommend using at least 1024 x 768 resolution."