Are we really looking carefully enough?

Discuss your experiences with and ideas about Stardust@home here.

Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods

Peter Borah
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:22 pm

Post by Peter Borah »

Quite simply, there are no tracks so far that look like the calibration and training movies. Not a one. People are doing their job, which is to look for things like the ones in the calibration and training movies. I agree that it's better to click than to not click, and I still click on the "inclusions" and I will until I'm told not to. However, berating people for not seeing tiny tracks they aren't told to look for or click on if they see seems odd.
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 8:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA

Post by Nikita »

I think Pocketlint made some good points on his Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:52 pm post. Especially about checking the whole surface. I know I have been guilty about not noticing the surface angle unless it is obviously slanted.

Please remember, we are going through these much faster than expected and we are seeing things that have not been seen before. No one saw these before we did. The beta testers were able to use the training material and do the job well, there was no way to know how it would all turn out until it began. There are only 6 people on the Stardust team. Mods are not part of that team! Perhaps they are looking into movies that have gotten a lot of discussion, to be able to provide answers, and not necessarily because there is something there. When they know, we'll know.

Until there is an answer on some of these, and I believe there will be, when they can, we will all do the best we can. 13 days into the project and as a community, we've looked at how many movies?!? At this rate, we will continue to catch up to them and wait for more movies and catch up and wait.... But that gives the movies more chances to be viewed.

Since we are all still fairly new at this, we need to understand that we must expect the unexpected and perhaps no one will be 100% right, or 100% wrong.
From dust we come

Re: agree

Post by icebike »

PocketLint wrote:
My point in the end is.. My observation are no more valid NOR invalid as anyone person's observations. It IS the rankings of all of participants and how they interpreted the movies that will decide on the order that the possible hits gets evaluated and that is all there is to it.
Fair enough, Well said.

PocketLint wrote: BTW: without a quote, 'YOU' would infer the to the author of the post I would think.
Er, which post? The thread is full of them. This time it appears you may have been responding to me, but by your reasoning I should assume you are still responding to the Thread seed. :wink:

Post by icebike »

Nikita wrote:
Please remember, we are going through these much faster than expected and we are seeing things that have not been seen before..
Are we going faster than expected?

I haven't seen any information on this posted anywhere, so its news to me.

If we are going faster than expected, why is that?
Are there more volunteers than expected, or does the VM work better than was expected, or are we too slap dash?

Posts: 994
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 8:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA

Post by Nikita »

You are very right on my miscommunication Icebike. My statement came from putting two things together. First was this statement from Bryan: ... .php?t=799

I followed that with the fact that people are viewing many, many more than that and that there have been multiple complaints of getting the same movies over and over. Also, there have been some complaints of having over 100 people view the same movie that the author of the post has in their events section.

I then saw that this project was going to be several months long.

Now without a debate over logic and assumptions, I think it is safe to say that I did state my opinion poorly. It came out as a fact. Thank you for pointing to it and allowing me a chance to correct that. I would not want it to be misinterpreted!

Happy Dusting!
From dust we come
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 8:12 pm
Location: Horsetown, USA

Post by DustBuster »

At least faster than we need to implied by the FAQ "How much time should I spend on StarDust" here ... .php?t=799.

It will take 7 months to scan the entire IDC; so it seems we get a batch and scan it to death until the next one is ready.
No dessert for you- ONE MONTH!

Post by icebike »

Bryan's Post wrote: We currently have just over 10,000 registered volunteers for the Stardust@home project. If we assume that each volunteer can look at an average of 3 focus movies per minute, then each volunteer needs to spend about 4 hours each over the course of the 7 months. That works out to roughly an average of 1 minute per day (or half and hour per month) per volunteer!
1 minute per day? :lol:

That was before Bryan went back to th lab and mixed an addictive substance into message so that you always keep saying to your self "just one more".
I suspect he embedded subliminal messages into the movies that say
You're not tired... The next frame has has a track... Your other duties can wait... This is Science!... Atta Boy!... keep on going...

That Bryan, what a jolly joker :!:

Every time I fire up the VM I find that before I know it, its 2AM.
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:54 pm

Post by h.d.thoreau »

By making this post, I was trying to put out a word of caution that we must not just quick scan every single picture, as this is not the best way, in my opinion. Just as you are entitled to your opinion that one can zip through these pictures without missing a single possible tract, I am entitled to mine.
PocketLint, you act as if I had personally attacked you, even though I don't know you and never have even heard of such a name until you posted here. Calm, down, for I was simply issuing a GENERIC word of caution. Please do not take it so personally, as this is not how I had intended my words to be read.

Pocket Lint, you should try taking your own advice and " not be so narrow minded.'" (I don't know how to quote properly, but you said that Saturday August 12,2006 9:10PM) You act like your view is the only one and that that of the rest of the posters is completely wrong. We must remember to expect the unexpected, and not strictly stick to the training movies, as these are unlike those flagged by the stardust team themselves. Remeber that many of the callibration movies were made terrestrially, in very differnet conditions than the real deal. Science is ever evolving, so you must not stick just to the known. You must think outside the box. Your logic is right, some of those might not be tracks, but I would rather mark them and have them turn out to not be tracks, then skip over them and have them be that one critical particle.

I am not saying that you are in it for the rankings, but in my lifetime, I have learned that people don't usually do things for nothing. It is a primal need, especially among men, to be first. While you, atleast consciously, are not in it for the rankings, many probably are. If you believe that people are not usually self centered, and like being first, then you need to open your eyes to the harsh reality that is the world, and stop shielding your fragile mind from ignorance of your fellow man. Read a newspaper. Also, remember that many people here are probably not of a mature age yet, and view this as a game, rather than science.

If people don't like winning, then why are there super bowls, and cheat codes. It is human nature to win, to be number one, and usually people will do anything to achieve it. Why is there a steroid epidemic, if people don;t feel a need to be number 1. I am not saying that you are in it for the ranking, I am not directly accusing anyone in this thread of being in it for the ranking, atleast consciously, but I am basing my presumption that many people are simply 'playing' to get number one on basic human nature, as well as my obeservations of the world.

And finally, it does not take me 30 minutes to analyze a film, but more like 20 seconds on very active films. On the less active films, I can rule it out as having no track in about 5 seconds. In the end is that extra bit of your time not worth it? If you would rather be fast than to truely analyze the films, in other word to do your job, maybe you shoudl take a cold hard look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are turely doing this.

And to clarify, that was a general warning to those reading this, not a personal attack on anybody.

You don't need to take my words of caution so personally. Maybe you shoudl have a glance at my SAT writing paper, you might learn some insight from it:
Prompt: Is it best not to change our ideas, opinions, or behaviors?
It is fundamentally impossible for one to not change his or her ideals. In
life, everything and anything can and will change in the blink of an eye.
Thus, it is important to be flexible in most situations which you are
presented with.
While it is true that one should not flip flop between important issues,
one must be able to adapt to changing situations. Take for example
prehistoric man. The very peoples which we descended from were primitive.
They had to be able to adapt to the oncoming ice age. If they had continued to stay with their primitive nature, and not adapted, civilization might have never happened. It is because of this primal need to be able to cope with changing environments, that we are here today. This evolution of ideas has allowed our society to flourish and be prosperous.
It is true, however, that being indecisive, as well as inconsistent, is a
weakness present in man. Those who cannot commit themselves are almost as bad as those who are not flexible minded. Truly, moderation is the key to happiness, as taught by the Buddha. One must not be so flexible as to run with the heard at the drop of a hat, but also must not stick to his or her ideas with a closed mind.
When people are firmly committed to their ideas and beliefs, it is a good
thing...sometimes. We must not, as humans, as civilized people, be so
closed minded and hold onto our beliefs and convictions so much that we are able to kill and be killed for them. We must not let our views hinter the
progression of society, either. It is these beliefs, these mental
boundaries, that have caused our society to be so isolationist. For, when
one thinks of this world, one should not see the mental boundaries of the
world's peoples, not these political boundaries that have been set before us and imposed on the world, but instead should see a world like it was made to be, free.
Many, if not most of society's problems are caused by these boundaries that tear our world into billions of pieces and reek havoc on its inhabitants.
It is only through the dissolving of these boundaries that our society can
truly be a free and just place in which to live. It is best not to hold
onto one's views, but instead to move onward. One's mind should evolve over time, instead of being stagnant. Maybe one day, people will understand the true value of thinking, and maybe, just maybe, our world will live peacefully then. For this reason, for this hope, it is imperative to be open minded, and most of all, live all that you can while you can.
In all of recent history, our society has progressed onward when radical
ideas have been introduced. It happened in the Renaissance, the revolution against Britain, and it can happen soon. When people start thinking for themselves, cease thinking like sheep, and are able to change their minds, evolve their thought, our society progresses, so, therefore, it is most important to have a flexible mind, as opposed to a closed mind, which grasps its ideas in a tightly bound fist of ignorance.

Score: 12 out of 12
Last edited by h.d.thoreau on Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post by icebike »

h.d.thoreau wrote:You don't need to take my words of caution so personally. Maybe you shoudl have a glance at my SAT writing paper, you might learn some insight from it:
Ok, the nome de plume was a bit much, but when I saw this, I stopped reading there!
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:54 pm

Post by h.d.thoreau »

It is actually spelled nom de plume, not nome de plume.
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Are we really looking carefully enough?

Post by _Dan_ »

h.d.thoreau wrote:I ask you to please look at these very carefully, as many of these possible tracks are very small. Also, we can't expect every track to look exactly like those in the calibration movies. The calibration movies are the BEST possible examples that they could find in order to make sure that everyone really knows what to look for, but remember that we are looking for the unexpected, which might mean smaller tracks that what we are used to from the calibration movies.

As someone who is in the top rankings, I'd like to put in my opinion on this. My understanding of this project is that they need our help to find an estimate of about 50 objects in over one million focus movies. Therefore one should expect to see one track every 20,000 movie.

When I started, I examined closely and thoroughly every movie, looking for every little weird anomaly. It was not long before I had over 50 movies marked. Thinking about it, it is my opinion that this may not be the best way to help, because I believe it creates "noise" that they have to filter through if we ever find a real track. Yes, I know the "real" tracks should stand out from the inclusions because more people should click on a real track than a speck, but what if the "real" track looks different enough from the calibration movies that a good part of the community misses them?

As evidence of this opinion, take a look at this one: ... d=742727V1
There is clearly something IN the aerogel, that is LARGE, and yet only 8 of 100 agree. It is probably a defect in the aerogel or a very large debris, but I have not seen anything remotely similar to this in the 13,000 other movies I have seen. I am no expert, so I would want to be sure the team looks at this. But because of the low agreement, and all of the others black dots that have higher agreements, how long before the team finally looks at this unique "thing"?

I have decided not to click on the little black spots anymore because:

1) I see so many of them, I think the team would not need our help if that's what they were looking for. Just by themselves, they could find enough "black dots" to keep the team busy analyzing and extracting them from the gel.

2) I have had a calibration movie where there was a clear dot below surface, I clicked, and got flagged as a "no track" (sorry, did not note the movie ID). I also believe that I once choose not to click on the two sub-surface specs I was seeing, and got credited a good calibration result.

3) I also believe that there will still be a few people that will always keep on clicking on those tracks, so they will probably not be "lost".

Standard disclaimer: Of course, these are all only my opinions and I could be wrong.

For those who judge a contributor by his stats, here are mine:

Calibration Movies Answered Correctly 5234
Calibration Movies Answered Incorrectly 9
Your Overall Score: 5225
Total Real Movies Viewed: 13046
Your Rank: 6 out of 10615
Specificity: 99.81%
Sensitivity: 99.85%

Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:22 pm

Post by DustDevil »

Hi there!
I've just read this thread and I'm happy to see that more people have seen those small dots below the surface.
I have found some of them, too. Everytime I see one, I think about what to click. Mostly I decide not to click on it, because...

- they don't have any track, they just get into and out of focus. So to me they don't look like a particle that has come into the aerogel from the outside but like somethink beeing included there from the beginning. I might be wrong.
- there would be far too many. That's just what Dan said.
- often the focus is not deep enough, so it doesn't get into/out of focus or I'm not even sure if there is something at all

I really would like to know from someone of the team if we shoult clik them or not!!!
Until then I'll keep ignoring them as you keep marking them.

BTW: The only calibrition movie I got wrong is one where I clicked on something that looked in my opinion much more like a track than those small dots. (ID 2647306V1, but I haven't saved it)

Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:15 am
Location: UK

Post by pointyhat »

From here: ... .php?t=797
It appears that of the hundred most clicked on movies so far only nine have been taken to the second review stage. It would be really useful to see the 91 that didn't make it along with the team's explinations as to why not. Might really help to cut down the number of false positives and give us all a better idea of what we are not looking for.

All the best

Re: Are we really looking carefully enough?

Post by icebike »

_Dan_ wrote: As evidence of this opinion, take a look at this one: ... d=742727V1
There is clearly something IN the aerogel, that is LARGE, and yet only 8 of 100 agree.
I agree that the large particle (top right) should be clicked. There looks to be an entrance mark on the surface just west of where it sits. Its at least 100 microns down into the gel.

Oh, wait a minute...
An alternate interpretation is the big particle is the entrance hole and the track leads to the west ending in a particle.

(Hard to tell here, because the surface at the top can not be brought into clear focus. This is a slated surface movie.)

It also has an interesting north-to-south surface track with a particle at the end. But that particle appears to be on the local surface.

In short, this is a very interesting movie and needs inspection.
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Are we really looking carefully enough?

Post by _Dan_ »

icebike wrote:I agree that the large particle (top right) should be clicked.
Top RIGHT? In my case, I was speaking about the large artifact in the top third of the top left quadrant that is visible in all frames, but comes clearly in focus in the most bottom one (focus down). As we focus up, we can se that all the other dots, marks and everything else is coming towards focus. Even though we don't reach focus of the surface, this convinces me that this item is "deep" in the aerogel.

Just to clarify my previous post, I want to say that I share Thoreau's concern "Are we really looking carefully enough", when tracks like this one and the one slated for 1st review (the one that looks like a sideways entry) have low agreements. I just did not agree with the examples he presented.

p.s.: Haven't read the forum docs yet. To post an image, do we have to host it somewhere, or is there a way to paste an image in the editor?

Post Reply