2017-07-11 - Issue with Project Discovery Evaluation Set


(Mirsa Attor) #43

That is basically what this whole thread is about.
The accuracy rating will be reset tomorrow/today

(Faye Dingaway) #44

I guess I’m a bit better at spotting patterns at a glance than most, but yes there is a bit of tweaking needed on this. I’ve had samples where patterns were there, I’ve had the fold-matching absolutely spot-on and it failed the submission - notwithstanding the fact that the “correction” points are in exactly the same place!

(Matthias Ancaladron) #45

they should have just locked it down now so no one can do it until they fix it.
lost a complete day of grinding for my bpc to help pay for plex next month cause of the mess up. my whole evening is shot now after ive been waiting for this to come out for months.

(Nazzarus) #46

what? firstly it’s a BPO, secondly, they are resetting accuracy, not points

(Aleverette) #47

Well, very many of the samples are, I can say, unsolvable by human eyes without dedicated college-level training.

Since there is already a algorithm to compute this then why still torture our eyes?
This mini game needs a senior remap.

(Nazzarus) #48

you guys are crazy this is easy. I’m at 87% accuracy and would be higher except for errors in the controls that are really obviously errors.

(Nazzarus) #50

Sure, it’s all about pattern breaks. There’s an out of focus solid line and you want to look for the breaks in that pattern (when it’s not glaringly obvious)

Transits aren’t always perfectly darker, they’ll (potentially) have spikes of brighter points (thought usually not brighter than that out of focus line) So it wont always be easy to spot.

Here’s an example of something to look for.

(i can’t add pictures, apparantly I’m a new user? lol)

(Aleverette) #51

I must say unfortunately you are just one of the lucky people whose samples are not screwed up


This is a typical average sample I have, and I have never seen any easy patterns after tutorial : ) (This auto emoji system is stupid)

And dat is the goddamn pattern : ) I gave up.

(Ronnie Rose) #52

Wow. The analysis is nearly impossible to discern. After a while my score dropped so low (26%) the professor was handing me my hat …“We appreciate your effort, but due to a low Accuracy Rating, you are not eligible for any rewards.”

…and trying even more just digs me deeper into the hole.

I think I will beat this discovery game by not playing it. That way when the accuracy is reset I 'll be at a marginal 50% and not on the losing side.

(Matthias Ancaladron) #53

Yep that’s exactly that’s exactly what the majority of my samples were.

That’s just static. There’s no pattern there and they just randomly placed the yellow “pattern”. Theyre broken slides and that’s why everyone’s getting them wrong when they should be marking no transits since most images won’t have any. Not all stars have stuff orbiting them in that time frame.

(Ghaelmash Hakaari) #54

I got a lots of derp sample with no transit but the program saw transit every day… I try to zoom but for me it is only background rumor in the 99,9% of the time. How the program work with that? The situation was better after a few hours when other players start proessing the samples. For new samples that noone processed can we get a result like when a little of people try to solve them without a loss or increment in the accuracy score?

(Christopher Nolm) #55

I’m still trying to wrap my head around the announcement. It’s not that these samples are wrong, it’s that they are too hard. What? How many exoplanets are going to be missed because I can not ever imagine myself seeing these ‘patterns’. Not even with a slow ramp up in difficulty - I just can’t imagine it. Is it that there will just end up with a few freakish players that can spot ultra subtle variations in noise? The rest of us will have the illusion of helping but really we won’t be contributing in any meaningful sense…

(Svetlana Moscovich) #56

So, I decided to ride the fail-train down to 0% accuracy, in an attempt to prove the “transits are rare!” claim that the tutorial makes.

I’ve no idea how many times I clicked through no transit, but on the entire trip down to 1% (because it doesn’t seem to let you get any lower than 1%), I encountered ZERO ‘no transit’ slides.

To be fair, I played the “game” to start with, and even got to rank 3. During that ‘serious’ play I encountered 3 no transits, but as soon as I dropped below 50%, not a single one.

So maybe, just maybe, get the UI guys to take that line out of the tutorial, because it’s utter bullshizzle.

(Kiauze) #57

I will hold off further judgment until the fix is released, but this really does NOT seem an issue of these being too hard to begin with, but a matter of whatever algorithm you have, scanning noise for transits.

This actually has the detrimental effect of having people “paranoid” about finding correct transits where there are none, seriously slowing down any positive effect the project might have in the first place. :frowning:

(Svetlana Moscovich) #58

Kiauze, I can’t even see the similarity between the two supposed transits in that image of yours, apart from the fact “some stuff goes up and down at random”.

(Vladimir Marachev) #59

-easymode: http://i.imgur.com/I2O1LcK.png

(Culdaris Kahn X) #60

Dont know what people are making such a fuzz about it…Sure its a bit harder then the last PD but im hitting solid 62% for a while now trying for 70 and starting to get the hang of it. Think people just dont have figured it out or just dont want to take the challange and blame their impatience for a bad set up

(Kiauze) #61

There’s ample, solid, and visual evidence that some people, myself included (see above post), have received samples where background noise is being interpreted as transits.

There’s also anecdotal evidence that some people don’t seem to be affected and are getting “easy” (or just plain accurate) samples.

I have no issue with difficulty and I welcome it. But it’s impossible to play a game you don’t know the rules to, or even a game where the rules seem random.

(elise densi) #62

So downtime happend but as u told our accuracy would be 50% again yet im still 19%

(Julie Morano) #63

also still at 20 odd percent.
and the sample looks just as opaque…