What am I supposed to see here?
You failed to spot the “impossible” transit in this Test Sample. There are a few like this and all you can really do about it is just continue on and just accept that it’s impossible to spot for the untrained eye.
So why are they in here if they’re basically a guaranteed fail? Were these chosen by some buggy AI, or did a scientist spot it? Or did CCP just say “heh, close enough” and put it in? Like how do these happen?
The test samples are confirmed by scientists, the rest are data from a pool of collected data from various telescopes around the world (by scientists). Project Discovery is Citizen Science project, the first project was about mapping various genomes; which type of cell, which protein, membrane and so on. The current one is about spotting Planets around distant stars, the method to do this is by looking at luminous-graphs which is the amount of light that has been recorded by the telescope for a specific section of the night sky over a time-period.
If that’s a confirmed sample, they really should apply some sort of sanity check to see whether it’s reasonably possible to determine. I’d be very curious how a scientist could pick something out from there, and it’s pretty unfair to expect anyone else to.
It’s probably because scientists have much more advanced programs/machines to better analyze the data than you would ever see in any “gaming” environment, also that they’ve spent years in school and probably also have many years of experience in the field
I don’t think that means there shouldn’t be a sanity check on the “Test” samples. If 90% or whatever number of players fail the test, remove it. Something simple like that.
I know it’s annoying but even with those few samples that are almost impossible to guess, I’ve achieved a 99% accuracy rate on average on all the test samples. Technically you could just say “No transit” on all the rest but if you do that it will screw up the whole point of Project Discovery entirely. Having difficult samples in the mix is a good thing otherwise everybody would just get 100% accuracy.
Whining over any of the things that people are constantly whining about is one thing. But this…
I’ll tell you what to do. Look to see if you are the only one whining. If you are, then the problem is with your brain and not with whatever or whoever you are trying to blame it on.
I did look, and I did see other people, but nobody ever even talks about Project Discovery any more so… But hey, how else will you get your rocks off if not being a twat to people on the EVE forums?
Ok I have thoroughly had enough of people like you saying “hey look at my 99% accuracy” like you deserved it or something.
Yes I have 99% accuracy, for the record EVERYONE HAS 99% ACCURACY.
Why you ask? Because everyone knows how to bypass the ones you don’t think you will pass.
It would be 100% accuracy if there weren’t complete ■■■■■■■■ results like the one posted here floating in the mix. You call that legit? Sure guy Sure.
Project Discovery is broken, the answers people are feeding the machine aren’t right and instead they are just feeding it the easy answers to get 99%. It was nice at first but after about a week of using it you realize how ■■■■■■ it really is.
EvE will be an example to the world why real exploration and video games are toxic to each other.
Perhaps Project Discovery is looking for that 1% that is able to spot the impossible transit.
From my observations - and I do most certainly share your frustrations, is that from the first time we open Project Discovery we are trained to look for “x, y, z” - we have this training beat into our brains, and we learn the hard way by losing accuracy ratings (which for me does matter) - so, when we encounter something which we actually spend more then 5 seconds assessing but cannot find anything we were trained to encounter, it’s a massive “wtf” when we see some result we don’t understand how it could possibly be a positive result.
I’ve wanted to screenshot scores of dozens of “wtf are you serious???” results which I actually spent the time to properly assess and analyze but where “confirmed” transits…
It’s not you - it’s how we were trained to spot these transits and the most BASIC means we have to analyze them. There will always be transits confirmed by “lol scientists” (many of whom are 47 year old vi… NM) and their algorithms which will always defeat the tools we are giving by “project click 3,333,333x discovery”
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.