Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Memphis Baas
1370
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 01:37:20 -
[61] - Quote
Accuracy now seems to be similar to gaining standings, what you get depends on how close to 100 you are (with diminishing returns). Which is ok.
We're still doing this, though, which I found hilarious.
|
Wimzy Chent-Shi
Unkindness Incorporated Who Dares Wins.
48
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 09:23:56 -
[62] - Quote
Well I am just sad I missed out on the cytoplasm freefarm that has been practiced before. I feel somewhat demotivated since 90% of my input is essentially randomly irrelevant to my gain. And even when I put in the effort and try to identify the correct thing, I get to find out that scientist or whoever responsible for the control sample had a different idea. I started humbly at 50% working towards 85% in the end. I also observed that over 50% of the non-control sample qualify for Unspecific, but nobody checks those, because you risk losing the accuracy rating, cause control samples might look like many things, but well, they have the holy truth in them for some reason.
If I were to have a personal statistic of where had I most frequently gone wrong between two options, let's say Microtubule organizing center vs Centrosome (yey silly me), I would probably pick options based on statics instead of my observations.
I came here in peace to find tears and misguided hatred. I don't mind to make my spaghetti little salty.
|
Memphis Baas
1370
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 13:16:52 -
[63] - Quote
Ideas:
1. We can write notes on other pilots' Show Info pages, to keep track of behavior. If you're not doing so already, CCP, start keeping track of the choices each character makes for Project Discovery, so you can easily differentiate between those who pick cytoplasm 99% of the time, and those who seem to pick whatever choices seem appropriate. You can build all sorts of statistics from this, including how "unusual" each choice is when it's made.
2. Project Rediscovery: the option to go through the samples again, but with the consensus visible, to agree or disagree with the consensus. For high accuracy players, or if you can somehow detect those of us who are actually trying to be accurate rather than to game the system.
3. The samples can be categorized:
- 1 or more choices at 100% - maybe these can be reviewed and converted into practice / accuracy slides, since we ALL seem to agree on the choices
- 1 or more choices at 50% - 90% - there's some sort of consensus
- 0 choices at 50%, but more than 8 choices at less than 20% - there's complete disagreement - something is confusing about the sample; maybe some of these can be reviewed and published on the website as contrast examples, or explanations on how to get the answer via elimination.
- not yet rated - you can keep a tally so you can see our progress.
|
Typhoon Maru
Angelic Shadows
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 13:35:38 -
[64] - Quote
I know it's a bit nit picky and asking for the moon on a stick , but it would be nice if we could examine the Option pictures using the magnifier and the colour filters. That said i'm enjoying this project immensely keep up the good work |
Nam Dnilb
Universal Frog
256
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 14:18:30 -
[65] - Quote
Typhoon Maru wrote:I know it's a bit nit picky and asking for the moon on a stick , but it would be nice if we could examine the Option pictures using the magnifier and the colour filters. That said i'm enjoying this project immensely keep up the good work
The above and unlock the image controls on the result screen please. Right now it a bit of "You, Sir, were wrong and you'll never know why!" |
NorthCrossroad
EVE University Ivy League
97
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 17:40:28 -
[66] - Quote
Just have to say it - female Sister of EVE armor is HOT. :) Best "clothing" ever. Though would be great to have incentives after 75k AK. Like Sister of EVE ships skins at 100k+ for example.
North |
Mars Aspen
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 18:01:05 -
[67] - Quote
I would guess that since the blue is quite strong the underlying green is weak, so the strongest green signal is as indicated. Just imo though.
|
Wimzy Chent-Shi
Unkindness Incorporated Who Dares Wins.
49
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 18:43:17 -
[68] - Quote
NorthCrossroad wrote:Just have to say it - female Sister of EVE armor is HOT. :) Best "clothing" ever. Though would be great to have incentives after 75k AK. Like Sister of EVE ships skins at 100k+ for example.
North This. The armor now stands for "not dealing in project discovery again" :-D although, if not purchased over a contract somewhere it also stands for a decent standard of accuracy and skill which should/could be further motivated by further rewards.
I came here in peace to find tears and misguided hatred. I don't mind to make my spaghetti little salty.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3115
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 18:47:32 -
[69] - Quote
Mars Aspen wrote:I would guess that since the blue is quite strong the underlying green is weak, so the strongest green signal is as indicated. Just imo though. The splotchy uneven sized nature of the green is a good sign of nuclear speckles rather than Nucleoli. Those two can be one of the hardest to tell apart. |
Pycu
BRUTAL GENESIS GaNg BaNg TeAm
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 08:51:38 -
[70] - Quote
CCP Wonderboy wrote:. Instead, we will increase the rate of training examples you get, for which you get an immediate rating.
Not sure if it's a bug or not but I have observed a not so rare case where my choice is the only correct one, marked with green etc. but my rating is not increasing when I submit it.
If the Submission history was working I was going to be able to provide an example.
Any ideas? |
|
The Golden Serpent
Order of Jamyl
150
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 10:11:17 -
[71] - Quote
I have been really impressed with the whole Project Discovery thing and if anything will make me resub this would be it, as it feels like I'm actually doing something real. |
Alexhandr Shkarov
Swamphole Inc. Swamphole
25
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 10:51:47 -
[72] - Quote
Feedback:
Since our accuracy rating is based on the pre-selected samples, could you please for the love of everything that you believe in add a box which explains WHY you want something specific if we have it wrong? I've had some images which could be two things but they claim I saw it wrong and needed to choose the other. It would be amazing if there was some explanation on why they see it that way, so that we can learn more about the process and be more accurate on other samples.
All my posts are on my personal title and should not be confused as me speaking for anyone else.
|
Memphis Baas
1375
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 13:45:07 -
[73] - Quote
Give them a couple weeks and then switch to "no more Project Discovery until they fix it" mode. Nothing more damaging than a rewards system that's unfair or that rewards wrong choices. |
NorthCrossroad
EVE University Ivy League
97
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 17:36:05 -
[74] - Quote
Another small thing. Would be great, if hovering over the Project Discovery button on the Neocom would show the amount of AKs in your "wallet". Just like when you hover over the Wallet button.
North |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
400
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 18:31:31 -
[75] - Quote
I just got around to trying this out, went part way through the tutorial. One thing.
How are we suppose to find the impairment in a cell when we have no good cell to reference.
Doesn't seem to realistic. Am I missing something? |
Black Snapper
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 23:28:27 -
[76] - Quote
Why oh why is my submission history always empty. Im at level 17 and have been doing this for 3 days... |
Memphis Baas
1394
|
Posted - 2016.03.29 18:17:04 -
[77] - Quote
The submission history is empty for everyone; they removed that functionality. We used to get rated by the Project Discovery people and that's how our accuracy increased; now the system automatically rates your accuracy by giving you the tutorial slides all over again and if you guess them correctly your accuracy goes up, otherwise it goes down. So the submission history no longer matters. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2219
|
Posted - 2016.03.30 14:49:04 -
[78] - Quote
This is a good change, however, I feel like the training samples need to be harder. A lot harder.
I can actually predict, with pretty close to perfect accuracy (exceptions are, e.g., microtubules, where the unknown samples are usually pretty obvious, too), whether or not a sample will be a training sample just by its appearance. They're pretty much always much "cleaner" and less ambiguous than the unknown samples.
While this has suppressed the motivation to click-cytoplasm-because-everyone-else-probably-did-too, I don't think a high accuracy score on the existing training samples is representative of ability on the unknowns.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Drake Carver
Minmatar Deep Space Expeditionary Corp
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.30 16:04:20 -
[79] - Quote
TL:DR >>This post is one big sloppy thank you for this wonderful game. Skip to the end for the actual question.
From the beginning I have supported project discovery for its purpose and a fascination with the microscopic world.
From my experience so far I find it disheartening that the system can and will be gamed however I am certain methods will arise and adapt to optimize for the best results for the hardworking researchers that will actually make use of the results to refine our knowledge to be less of a guessing game in whatever we MMO player assist in.
Now I may be sorely mistaken in the things I am about to suggest but there are some functions that I feel would at least allow serious project discovery players to get a little more satisfaction from a job well done.
I often find that sometimes I have made an obvious mistake only after checking all the marks.
If there could be a way to report that I am truly mistaken in my result so that I cannot knowingly skew the results I would be thankful. I would still gladly accept the consequences of reductions in accuracy or the nullification of any gains I would have stood to earn. Letting obviously bad results through does not feel right and if I could make reparations I would.
TL:DR >>Can there be a button for reporting that a mistake has been made but it was realized only after submitting. |
Terminal Insanity
Pwn 'N Play SpaceMonkey's Alliance
931
|
Posted - 2016.03.30 20:45:09 -
[80] - Quote
This is a really neat addition to the game.
I wonder if you could expand this to include other science projects as well? a massive real science lab in eve!
"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
|
|
Memphis Baas
1399
|
Posted - 2016.03.31 00:22:17 -
[81] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:This is a good change, however, I feel like the training samples need to be harder. A lot harder.
I can actually predict, with pretty close to perfect accuracy (exceptions are, e.g., microtubules, where the unknown samples are usually pretty obvious, too), whether or not a sample will be a training sample just by its appearance.
I disagree.
First, it's a game, let people get enjoyment from seeing their accuracy increase and their rewards increase. Because the rewards are crap anyway, so going from 50k to 100k is still pretty crappy.
Second, how would you feel with your confidence of "perfect accuracy" but only 50% in the score at the top of the screen? At 25 slides per level, anyone reaching level 40 has done 1000 slides, and should be a freaking expert.
Third and last, if they make them a lot harder I will screenshot all of them and then reference the image and "guess" correctly next time. Thus, making the slides harder just reinforces the wrong kind of gameplay.
I don't want to learn more subcellular morphology than it's already been presented or than I know from general knowledge. Project Discovery isn't easy, and we're working for free, so make it harder and a lot of people will just stop working. Because EVE is a game, not work.
|
Beta Maoye
113
|
Posted - 2016.03.31 02:52:38 -
[82] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote: Third and last, if they make them a lot harder I will screenshot all of them and then reference the image and "guess" correctly next time. Thus, making the slides harder just reinforces the wrong kind of gameplay.
Sooner or later, according to the tradition of Eve, someone will post a full list of answers to known samples on the web. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2219
|
Posted - 2016.03.31 14:50:58 -
[83] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:This is a good change, however, I feel like the training samples need to be harder. A lot harder.
I can actually predict, with pretty close to perfect accuracy (exceptions are, e.g., microtubules, where the unknown samples are usually pretty obvious, too), whether or not a sample will be a training sample just by its appearance. I disagree. First, it's a game, let people get enjoyment from seeing their accuracy increase and their rewards increase. Because the rewards are crap anyway, so going from 50k to 100k is still pretty crappy. Second, how would you feel with your confidence of "perfect accuracy" but only 50% in the score at the top of the screen? At 25 slides per level, anyone reaching level 40 has done 1000 slides, and should be a freaking expert. Third and last, if they make them a lot harder I will screenshot all of them and then reference the image and "guess" correctly next time. Thus, making the slides harder just reinforces the wrong kind of gameplay. I don't want to learn more subcellular morphology than it's already been presented or than I know from general knowledge. Project Discovery isn't easy, and we're working for free, so make it harder and a lot of people will just stop working. Because EVE is a game, not work.
I don't have perfect accuracy - what I said is that I can predict whether or not a given image is a training sample with close to perfect accuracy. They're invariably highly precise examples of their given type. Visually, they stick out like a sore thumb.
Consequently, they don't do a particularly good job of training the player to identify the comparatively "noisy" unknown samples.
I'm not saying they should be harder for any balance related reason - I'm saying they need to be more closely representative of the samples we're actually trying to identify to serve any effective purpose.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Memphis Baas
1401
|
Posted - 2016.03.31 22:31:02 -
[84] - Quote
I agree in principle with that, but they have to make sure that the example slides contain only the single cell feature that they're exemplifying. Blur and distort all you want, but if the example for plasma membrane shows a cell with plasma membrane and cytoplasm, then we'll mis-grade all the normal samples based on how the green appears in the example slide, cytoplasm included.
Because we don't really know microbiology. Golgi strands look a little like mitochondria strands, and the single sentence of text explaining each of them doesn't really stress just how critical it is to note if the squiggles are spread out through the cell or only in the vicinity of the nucleus (actually touching it).
To me it's more important that the example slides function as good examples, than it is that they function as an accurate scoring mechanism.
They can just get rid of the accuracy score altogether and just give everyone 99k xp every slide, it's not like that would make any difference. Might even convince some more people to try some slides. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2172
|
Posted - 2016.04.16 21:25:58 -
[85] - Quote
Can we get examples of what something isn't to go along with what something is
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
148
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 01:52:29 -
[86] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:This is a good change, however, I feel like the training samples need to be harder. A lot harder.
I can actually predict, with pretty close to perfect accuracy (exceptions are, e.g., microtubules, where the unknown samples are usually pretty obvious, too), whether or not a sample will be a training sample just by its appearance. I disagree. First, it's a game, let people get enjoyment from seeing their accuracy increase and their rewards increase. Because the rewards are crap anyway, so going from 50k to 100k is still pretty crappy. Second, how would you feel with your confidence of "perfect accuracy" but only 50% in the score at the top of the screen? At 25 slides per level, anyone reaching level 40 has done 1000 slides, and should be a freaking expert. Third and last, if they make them a lot harder I will screenshot all of them and then reference the image and "guess" correctly next time. Thus, making the slides harder just reinforces the wrong kind of gameplay. I don't want to learn more subcellular morphology than it's already been presented or than I know from general knowledge. Project Discovery isn't easy, and we're working for free, so make it harder and a lot of people will just stop working. Because EVE is a game, not work. Discovery isn't a game, though. We're actually telling researchers what their microscope looked at in the lab, and they're probably going to use those results develop medicines and diagnose tricky diseases based on the data we give them. The higher the quality of results we give, the better they can do exactly that.
What makes it feel like a game is how we get shinies and boosters from it, and how it "keeps score." With the accuracy system the way it is, it's not all that difficult to game, because most of the test slides are pretty obvious. Some of them aren't obvious, and some of the obvious ones claim they weren't test samples.
A signature :o
|
Memphis Baas
1476
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 22:20:22 -
[87] - Quote
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:Discovery isn't a game, though. We're actually telling researchers what their microscope looked at in the lab, and they're probably going to use those results develop medicines and diagnose tricky diseases based on the data we give them.
It is a game because it's not a job, and it's not a job because we don't get paid with RL money. So they asked a bunch of gamers to click some buttons inside our preferred game, and they are giving no feedback after you've clicked. Sounds like an EVE minigame to me, much like archeology or mining.
It's a game because:
- you have to start up the EVE game client to access PD. - you get ISK and item rewards from it. - we can "game" the choices if we want to.
- there are no repercussions (What if everyone clicking cytoplasm results in the "future medicine" being a carcinogen, for example? Are they going to arrest any of us?).
- there are no supervisors and there is no peer review. - there is no pay.
You want everyone to be serious and treat PD like a serious research project. Maybe that's what they want, too. Or maybe, they get better results if 50,000 people click it like a game, than if only 50 click it seriously and everyone else says "screw it, this is no fun, let's shoot some ships." |
Tanya Anatolia
Minerva's Ward
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.27 16:16:36 -
[88] - Quote
Skimmed through a good share of this thread, but with good reason, I have a personal gripe about a bad slide. Normally I'm fine with one that's a little grey zone or hard to classify, and I admit I've gotten my fair share wrong, but this one got right in my craw:
http://imgur.com/M3YioIz
I see two instances of a cytokinetic bridge and one instance of a lactin filament, but it's classified as intermediate filaments. My accuracy score took a huge hit from that one, and I take pride in my accuracy score.
It's low-effort ISK and a chance at a shiny lab coat, so I'm still "satisfied" but this particular slide took a saki bowl worth of wine and some complaining in corp chat before I felt better about it. |
Moondo
The Moomins The Unthinkables
4
|
Posted - 2016.04.28 01:54:01 -
[89] - Quote
Really, PD???
http://imgur.com/a/KH5W7
REALLY??!!?!?!?
|
|
HPA Illuminator
The Human Protein Atlas
29
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 13:38:42 -
[90] - Quote
Tanya Anatolia wrote:Skimmed through a good share of this thread, but with good reason, I have a personal gripe about a bad slide. Normally I'm fine with one that's a little grey zone or hard to classify, and I admit I've gotten my fair share wrong, but this one got right in my craw: http://imgur.com/M3YioIz I see two instances of a cytokinetic bridge and one instance of a lactin filament, but it's classified as intermediate filaments. My accuracy score took a huge hit from that one, and I take pride in my accuracy score. It's low-effort ISK and a chance at a shiny lab coat, so I'm still "satisfied" but this particular slide took a saki bowl worth of wine and some complaining in corp chat before I felt better about it.
Aye, there are two ckn bridges visible, but as they aren't stained in the green channel, one should not label them. What you do see is a small intermediate filament stretching over the nucleus, so I'd say it's correct (maybe we should add ccv too though).
Having said that, we created a reddit thread for reporting incorrect samples, to easier collect and follow up at:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4gtoyg/project_discovery_collecting_incorrect_control/ |
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |