EVE General Discussion

 
4 PagesFirst pagePrevious page234
 

Tips for Project Discovery exoplanets?

Author
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2017-07-14 00:36:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Photrius Pyrelius
Vanessa Celtis wrote:
Naril Mikjail wrote:
Hi everyone!

Has anyone some tricks and tips to locate the correct answer in Project Discovery? I really suck on it

Thanks


Same for me, sorry no tip, I tried for several hours and I found zero transition.

The samples provided do not have enough granularity to find any transition, it's un-playable and the user-interface sucks. There should be a way to zoom-in but having more granularity so you can actually see any existing transition pattern.

Fail fit!


The lack of granularity is due to the telescope taking its measurements only so many times per day (seems to be around 150 times per day [estimate, not counting *all* those little dots]). Also due to the inconsistency in the light measurement due to God-knows what dust and space stuff (not to mention other photons) transiting the star in the light years between the telescope and the star.


I'm also getting very frustrated with this. I don't even care so much about the rewards, I mostly want to give them good data, and I can't do that if I can't learn how to give good data. =-( It would be nice if I could use the folding tool after I fail a slide.

EDIT: Yeah, I just cannot get the hang of this. I fail the known tests and I go back and loot at them and the transits I'm supposed highlight have upward spikes in them. That's the opposite of what's supposed to happen. Maybe I'll try again in a few months, let them iron out whatever problems are plaguing it. Or maybe I'm just not meant to be an exoplanet hunter. =(
Demonic Wheat Pineapple
#62 - 2017-07-14 15:42:21 UTC
Caldari State
#63 - 2017-07-14 18:42:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Paaltamo
What the!?

http://imgur.com/5BtZxpD

Edit:
K, I'm out for now. I'll check in a month or so again
http://imgur.com/ZbN82KI
Dot Dot Dot
#64 - 2017-07-15 07:59:57 UTC
This is becoming more frustrating by the day. I cant get my accuracy above 70% most of the time because of stupid ones that seem to insist theres a pattern when even after zooming in and having a closer look, i still cant see one. The fact that this seems to work of a consensus means that if 100 people are wrong and 50 people are right, then the right answer becomes the wrong one, its ridiculous. Someone must have told the devs that 2 wrongs make a right somewhere down the line.

I've had ones where a singular line goes up meaning an abundance of light apparently being the right answer, but to me, that means a possible solar flare and its obviously not what im looking for. Please correct me if im wrong but aren't we supposed to be doing the opposite? looking for shades of lines pointing down that stand out that could indicate a possible planet?

I believe that now the majority of people have had a few days to get to grips with this game, it needs to have another wipe. If only to correct the ones that have been done badly by people who are learning how to play the game, or set up some sort of ranking system where you only get the choice from a select amount of data between each 10 levels or so, so anyone who's grinding this out for the rewards or simply enjoys doing it, can use data that hasnt been touched by people who only played for a few hours and didnt have a clue what they were actually looking for
#65 - 2017-07-16 11:16:09 UTC  |  Edited by: DrysonBennington
zoltan Ishikela wrote:
http://imgur.com/RLoKtKb

missed 1 marker, FAILED


Nah, that was a Successful Analysis.


Ghazbaran wrote:


Sometimes you will also find what are called False Positives that look like dips but are not.
#66 - 2017-07-16 11:33:01 UTC  |  Edited by: DrysonBennington
Phoenix Paaltamo wrote:
What the!?

http://imgur.com/5BtZxpD

Edit:
K, I'm out for now. I'll check in a month or so again
http://imgur.com/ZbN82KI


What you found appears to be a very large planet orbiting its star:

1. 4.072% dip or amount of light that is blocked. Jupiter causes a 1% dip in the light curve of our own sun so the planet would be ~ 3x the size of Jupiter.

2. The planet has ~ 12 hour transit period (based on Earth time) or the time that it blocks the sun when being viewed.

3. The planet orbits the star ~ every 1 1/2 days which is very fast for a planet 3x the size of Jupiter. The planet could be tidally locked to the star and star is rotating very fast.
#67 - 2017-07-16 16:05:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Gulnack
First, I found a lot of people on here to be correct when they said it gets easier. Anytime I dip down to around 45% I get a few easy examples to push me back over 50% before getting some garbage again. A lot of times I can detect a faint pattern. I know something is there, but despite that knowledge I cannot pull out the answer they are looking for.

Second, the analysis UI/Tool is pretty but not practical. I can't exactly put my finger on what's needed but feel that the detrend option needs additional tuning parameters to allow us to better confirm/reject 'ghost' patterns. Don't disable folding after the answer has been revealed (let us explore and learn from errors)... Finally, I HIGHLY suspect that the data integrity of the training set may be flawed.... Maybe not, maybe we just need better tools, but I really do think some of the "answers" are indicating false positives. Once again, enable folding for exploration after the answer has been revealed.

Third, this is maybe the most frustrating, I'm pretty sure that a significant number of Eve players could do a better job if they were just given the raw data in a csv. Seriously, a moving average, some regression analysis, outlier detection and a simple check for autocorrelation could be done more effectively in Excel than through this UI... It's more frustrating than fun and doesn't advance the science. I'd be willing to bet that at least a few players more ambitious and enterprising than myself are already pumping the CREST data through R. Seriously, what are we doing here?


Edit - I've been playing a bit more and I am now convinced that the training set is flawed and that players are literally being trained to aggressively search for and flag false positives.
Caldari State
#68 - 2017-07-16 23:39:19 UTC
The UI .. sigh.. some full screen option would be good. Also why would you change the y-axis on me while i'm moving the zoom area to look for a matching pattern?!

What do you think of this beauty kek

sweet 16 day orbital period that doesn't fit the screen..
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2017-07-17 02:32:59 UTC
Larry Fat wrote:
The UI .. sigh.. some full screen option would be good. Also why would you change the y-axis on me while i'm moving the zoom area to look for a matching pattern?!

What do you think of this beauty kek

sweet 16 day orbital period that doesn't fit the screen..



All you can say on the orbital period is that it is at least fourteen and a half days.

Also, just how. How?! How is someone supposed to tell there's a transit there? The yellow points look no different than the surrounding data points.
Caldari State
#70 - 2017-07-17 13:34:19 UTC
I'm stuck at around 70% because .. coming at this from a game angle.. it'd be super helpful to know _why_ i failed so I could improve. The cell thing was better because being a visual person i sucked at first but then improved quickly because it was easier to learn from my mistakes. How about a brief explanation "what to look for" or an answer key of sorts at the predetermined slides.
Rate My Ticks
#71 - 2017-07-17 13:56:54 UTC
Larry Fat wrote:
I'm stuck at around 70% because .. coming at this from a game angle.. it'd be super helpful to know _why_ i failed so I could improve. The cell thing was better because being a visual person i sucked at first but then improved quickly because it was easier to learn from my mistakes. How about a brief explanation "what to look for" or an answer key of sorts at the predetermined slides.


Agree. When I get a "failed analysis" I'd like to learn why.
For this to get successful, the reference sheets with known results should be extended with detailed data WHY the known result IS the known result. So we can learn.

Also, being able to fold/zoom after a failed analysis would be SUPER helpful.

I miss zooming on folds anyways.
CAStabouts
#72 - 2017-07-17 14:58:54 UTC
Have played with this for a few hours now. Have to say, whether it is the interface, the granularity of the data or whatever - seems like bullshit to me.

Expecting the human eye to infer patterns in what is essentially random static. "This random cluster is a transit, even though it had no features in common with the other random clusters that are allegedly the same object's transits"

Yeah, right.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."

- Hunter S. Thompson

#73 - 2017-07-17 23:54:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Amy G Dalin
Planets are Magick

I thought the game was trying to trick me, because the star is consistently getting brighter before and after the planet passes in front of it, and planets don't make stars brighter, short of falling into them.

So, if this really is a planet, how is the star getting brighter? The only thing I can imagine is gravitational lensing, and I'm not at all convinced that's a viable explanation.

Edit:

I decided to do the tutorial again, and it seems there really is a brightness increase. The things I don't pay attention to.
Solitaire.
#74 - 2017-07-18 11:04:04 UTC
Amy G Dalin wrote:
Planets are Magick

I thought the game was trying to trick me, because the star is consistently getting brighter before and after the planet passes in front of it, and planets don't make stars brighter, short of falling into them.

So, if this really is a planet, how is the star getting brighter? The only thing I can imagine is gravitational lensing, and I'm not at all convinced that's a viable explanation.

Edit:

I decided to do the tutorial again, and it seems there really is a brightness increase. The things I don't pay attention to.

that has nothing to do with the planet, its normal cycle is going up and down.
Ivy League
#75 - 2017-07-18 12:32:10 UTC
I have been grinding away at this for a few days now and seem to be doing OK. My accuracy is hovering around 70% and I have the hang of the tools available.

What confuses me are the results I get after I submit my findings.

Analysis succeeded/failed seems to mean that I did or did not match a professionally analyzed result. The impact is a bump or drop in my accuracy rating. This kind of makes sense but most/all of my "fails" are plates that I still can't see a pattern in and that is frustrating. There are also plates where I find some but not all or too many planets and that is counted as a fail instead of partial credit.

The consensus ones really make me wonder what we are doing. They don't hurt my accuracy score, but my results and what other people are reporting are very often wildly different. I tend to only mark what I consider an obvious single drop in brightness or in folded trends, but it appears to me that some folks are marking any dip below average which would create a bunch of false positives for the real researches to spend time reviewing. Or maybe they are right and I just can't see the patterns they found.

Anyway, I agree there is room for improvement, but I am going to keep doing it until I get really bored or burned out.
#76 - 2017-07-23 01:58:46 UTC
Like others, I'm getting frustrated with exoplanets.

I managed to get up above 70% and thought I had finally figured it out - then crashed below 60% after a series of training sets with "invisible" transits. Zooming in and using the various detrend
Another had an obvious series of dips that folded perfectly - yet every other dip was marked as a false positive.

I revisited the tutorial and did better than the first time, but it simply doesn't equip you with the necessary techniques to deal with anything other than the obvious training sets.

It feels like trying to do brain surgery, when the only tool you are given is a hammer.
Would a fully adjustable detrend tool help?

I would like to see a video of an exoplanet expert demonstrating how to find the "invisible" transits using the same tools we are given - I am not convinced that it is possible.
#77 - 2017-07-23 20:35:18 UTC
This is a joke, right? https://imgur.com/a/fWgnT
4 PagesFirst pagePrevious page234
Forum Jump