I have the same question. Is it BPC or BPO…?
Reaching level 50 takes a lot of time. Does it really worth it to get a BPC…?
I understand, helping science is good, but I do enough of it at work. 
Aside from the samples that are so impossibly meshed with the solar background noise, I get these once in a while.
Any future plans to rate some of the solutions?
Has the fix / new dataset been loaded yet do we know?
Alt just ran into this crap. So is it 2 planets? or 1 with a 11’ish period? or is the solution my submission is bounced off of wrong?
Again, either fix the dataset or give a feedback system to allow us to say that some solutions may be wrong so they can be looked over by who ever is managing this project.
Ok i am very tolerant, plz look at the below image, and explaing what more can i do to avoid below failings.
Its like playing virtual darts, if you hit bulls eyes you get exp and some random drop.
if not you fail and get no exp
you need to fix your rewards mech, because the level of accuracy needed is seriously draining.
Dear Claymore,
I must say, with all due respect, the UX/UI design for this thing is fookin shite, and that’s the technical term.
The waveform is extremely difficult to analyse when the data is noisy, the contrast is eye-wateringly horrible, the mouse controls are extremely limited, the section of the window to work with is an absolute laugh, proper tools for statistical and spectrum analysis (for regular variables) are dearly lacking (detrend will only help so much), and the GUI animations are super annoying. So often I find myself just clicking “no transits” out of spite because I can’t be bothered to use this tool that could be so much more to find some wiggle in an otherwise dumb stream of noise just because the tool is so painfully awkward and unwieldy to use. I want to do real science here, dive right into analysing data, but I can’t hope to get actual crunchwork done because this tool has already gone through a whole life cycle of design, development, QA, public test, and release, and even hoping for significant feature improvements for a project of such scale is all but practically unreasonable given the constraints of a game dev company’s day-to-day business, is it not?
I’m saddened and disappointed at being given such half-arsed tool for such important work. And while I, as someone working in software dev, can emphasise that a games company cannot throw arbitrary amounts of resources at a fraction of its product, as an end user I think it is a poorly designed feature with dear need of improvement and extension.
Kind regards,
A.
CCP this is brilliant and very fun.
My record so far is over 50% on some of the hard ones. Another great run l had more than
30 + hits on a 300 trans run.
l like this a lot, so cudos to you in Ccp for a brilliant add on product ingame 
Cheers
Yours Sincerely
Plan Neun
Enjoying the citizen science, thank ya’ll(you all)…
Suggestion: Can ya’ll not have the time markers(0d, 1d, 2d,…) disappear when changing the detrend time or when turning the detrend on/off?
Reason: It becomes very easy to lose position when tracking, by eye, a suspected transit when the time index is removed. I admittedly can conceive of no visual benefit to clearing the time axis during these transitions.
Observation/Suggestion (Implemented): As all periodic systems, like music, have specific possible harmonic periods definable mathematically; Could ya’ll add a slider that can be used to double, triple, quintuple, septuple,…( first few primary harmonics) between the orbital period currently being worked on( & also in folded mode for quick checks of whether there are subharmonic periodicities not originally noticed)? If not then could ya’ll then add the ability to jump back to the folded mode of a previously confirmed transit as that would save many extra clicks, saving time & getting more eyes on more data per unit time?
Implementation Feedback: This is EXACTLY what I was referring to thank you. I expect this will aid myself & others greatly.
Suggestion: Can ya’ll allow for us to deselect(/select out) a portion of the data, by time range, for the calculations to ignore( or give an upper/lower limit to) the deselected data for processing the rest of the data(, detuning/folding)?
Reason: Occasionally there are extreme variations(, up or down,) in the data that the system tries to fit into the Y/% axis thus obscuring(/not properly expanding vertically) all the rest of the data.
Query: As occasionally there are issues with the data not related to the star in question & we are working with raw data directly, it may behoove us all if some time was spent mentioning such errors and giving exemplars of such?.. E.g. occasionally there will be a straight line going through entire days( no data captured?).
Query: When there are very periodic sinusoidal features of the starlight received could we not find a way to adjust the time axis along the sin wave before(/instead of) using the detrend? This could be visualized by having the sun image oscillate or the like.
Query: There are a few curated exemplars ya’ll have that are very difficult to believe are actual transits for me. I have clicked on the yellow/red arrows & studied them as best I can and can not find a rational for having made such a decision using the current tools. These are the ones that are very “noisy” transits without any definable U or V curve when folded. Could ya’ll guide us on how these were identified as actual planetary transits? (I, personally, do not like how often I “fail” due to these specific exemplars)
per aspera ad astra … Through hardship to the stars
In most cases the fine tuning can be done what you fold the signal.
However, sometimes when I see the result that they call “missed transition” - there is nothing at all looking like a transition.
You get only BPC.
Imagine if they gave out originals… the supposed to be somewhat rare CONCORD frigate would be much less rare, I guess.
When, on the screen with Prof. Michael Mayor poising sternly, you click through the pictures of the Pacifier( & Enforcer) it does state ‘Original - Infinite Runs’ so I am wondering the authority of your information?
Primary- You made level 50(/150) & personally experienced the reward?
Secondary- You know a primary who shared the information with you?
Tertiary- You know a secondary who knows a primary( and there was no miscommunication)?
‘Assumptionary’- You assumed & are sharing this as truth instead of a guess?
-Hoping you are upholding true to the fundamental honor held by the ‘Maldorian race’,… which you presume in taking their name…, Nora.
There is a Dev post in one of these threads that says the display is bugged and the Concord ship rewards are bpc’s only.
2 Likes
Hi CCP,
could you please add a [BACK] function after a sample has failed, because every time I missed an orbit I feel the need to retrace my steps and actually learn something from failing. I would like to be able to fold it again and see what I need to look out for next time.
Also I found a test sample that is clearly wrong, I’m not sure where to report this, maybe reporting this directly could be an option in game too?
Thanks
1 Like
Suggestion:
after the result is presented, the ability to fold the result would allow us to see how a folded patter can look like.
So my suggestion is to add the fold function after the result is presented.
NOTHING is live on Singularity at the moment…
There is a problem: The test samples at about 70% accuracy are easy, the samples at 85% or higher are impossible. Unfortunatelly I can’t upload screenshots, because this is my first post.
Like this the whole thing get’s just anoying, so I feel like I should just transmit all samples empty, until I’m back to 70% with the easy tests. This would make the scientific part completly useless.