Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Mike Denard
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 04:22:54 -
[1] - Quote
I'm getting pretty frustrated with how these mechanics work. There's too many areas where random static that doesnt have a discernible pattern or actually doesn't match at all is listed as correct, or areas where identifying a planet is still an analysis failure because it doesnt match up perfectly with what the system has decided is right.
I'd be fine with this if there was some explanation for why some answers are wrong, or how the hell they're identifying planets in some of these areas that dont match up with the in game explanation for exoplanet identification.
Here's one result I've gotten that's pretty mild. Screenshot |
Baboo Yagu
31
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 04:25:45 -
[2] - Quote
I'll see your screwed up analysis and raise you this...
https://i.imgur.com/pAHYS3m.png
Hello darkness, my old friend.
|
Mike Denard
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 06:17:55 -
[3] - Quote
They really need to take a closer look at what they're using to analyze players. This doesnt even make sense.
http://imgur.com/a/BUkhJ |
Ghazbaran
Porterhausen Industries Demonic Wheat Pineapple
9
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 14:57:12 -
[4] - Quote
Algorithm is off for recognizing data points.
I believe we need data tables to be able to better understand changes because we cannot always recognize something by how it looks visually and the vague approximations we get with the graph. Seeing the specific number on the data point would be highly beneficial.
http://imgur.com/LLdzTUB
Made a Channel to discuss issues with Exoplanets and trade Items obtained from project discovery.
Join -> New Eden Planetary Society |
Photrius Pyrelius
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 15:08:50 -
[5] - Quote
Ghazbaran wrote:Algorithm is off for recognizing data points. I believe we need data tables to be able to better understand changes because we cannot always recognize something by how it looks visually and the vague approximations we get with the graph. Seeing the specific number on the data point would be highly beneficial. http://imgur.com/LLdzTUBMade a Channel to discuss issues with Exoplanets and trade Items obtained from project discovery. Join -> New Eden Planetary Society
The reason it's marked wrong is almost certainly due to it being a two-planet system. I'm not sure how we're supposed to make such a distinction, though. You can't even tell by looking at the depth of every other trough in that picture. Funny story, I found one where every even dip was much shallower than every odd dip, so I marked it as a two-body transit only to find out I was wrong. |
Ghazbaran
Porterhausen Industries Demonic Wheat Pineapple
9
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 15:11:29 -
[6] - Quote
Photrius Pyrelius wrote:Ghazbaran wrote:Algorithm is off for recognizing data points. I believe we need data tables to be able to better understand changes because we cannot always recognize something by how it looks visually and the vague approximations we get with the graph. Seeing the specific number on the data point would be highly beneficial. http://imgur.com/LLdzTUBMade a Channel to discuss issues with Exoplanets and trade Items obtained from project discovery. Join -> New Eden Planetary Society The reason it's marked wrong is almost certainly due to it being a two-planet system. I'm not sure how we're supposed to make such a distinction, though. You can't even tell by looking at the depth of every other trough in that picture. Funny story, I found one where every even dip was much shallower than every odd dip, so I marked it as a two-body transit only to find out I was wrong.
Two system or not, they want transits. Also, look at the data points. almost identical and in the tutorial it clearly states that similar data is probably the same planetary orbit which was my reasoning behind it being 1. When folded, it folds perfectly into each other because their data points are almost identical |
Photrius Pyrelius
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 15:14:18 -
[7] - Quote
Ghazbaran wrote: Two system or not, they want transits. Also, look at the data points. almost identical and in the tutorial it clearly states that similar data is probably the same planetary orbit which was my reasoning behind it being 1. When folded, it folds perfectly into each other because their data points are almost identical
You'll get no defensive argument from me. Wouldn't being perfectly lined up like that mean that bodies are in synchronous opposing orbits around the star? What are the odds on that?! |
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty
299
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 15:37:54 -
[8] - Quote
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/319140823344087042/335444488392671232/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/124557015736385536/335443190620356608/unknown.png
System is borked |
Ghazbaran
Porterhausen Industries Demonic Wheat Pineapple
9
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 15:43:11 -
[9] - Quote
So whats your take on this?
http://imgur.com/a/Ssezo |
Ghazbaran
Porterhausen Industries Demonic Wheat Pineapple
9
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 15:51:14 -
[10] - Quote
YUP |
|
Photrius Pyrelius
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 15:51:56 -
[11] - Quote
Looks as indecipherable as many of the ones I got wrong yesterday. =-\ I really don't know what's wrong with the system, but honestly we should all know better than to think something's going to be perfect (playable?) on launch-day. And that's no dig against CCP; the whole industry launches stuff prematurely just to get it out the door, patch it up later. |
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement Limited Expectations
276
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 19:15:49 -
[12] - Quote
I had this evaluation sample, what you marked is a sudden jump in brightness, that, after de-something-cation looks like a "Z" instead of a "V".
Omen Navy Issue Tutorial
|
Ghazbaran
Porterhausen Industries Demonic Wheat Pineapple
9
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 21:33:48 -
[13] - Quote
Why am I wrong?
http://imgur.com/eJA3vsb |
Loame en Welle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.15 01:16:00 -
[14] - Quote
I bought into the hype... unfortunately this is not analysis. |
Bones Prefect
Wormholers in Highsec Wormholes United
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.15 02:36:44 -
[15] - Quote
Dont ask me... https://imgur.com/a/Eqfox |
Mike Denard
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1
|
Posted - 2017.07.15 03:30:25 -
[16] - Quote
Same thing again here. The analysis is wrong a lot of the time. Not us. http://imgur.com/a/9v2zt |
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty
308
|
Posted - 2017.07.15 20:59:26 -
[17] - Quote
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/264781482348773376/335887428885938198/unknown.png
So are we going to get a blue post about this broke ass system? :P |
Joseph Bramah
In Dock We Trust
1
|
Posted - 2017.07.15 23:33:06 -
[18] - Quote
wrong example sample:
http://i.imgur.com/CRJ3xSO.png |
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement Limited Expectations
282
|
Posted - 2017.07.16 00:44:40 -
[19] - Quote
that one is quite obvious, look at the timeline, the little dips look all the same
Omen Navy Issue Tutorial
|
Galaxxis
Unicorn Rampage
202
|
Posted - 2017.07.16 00:52:33 -
[20] - Quote
http://imgur.com/a/7EDpd
This is getting irritating. |
|
Light Ituin
Offline 501
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.16 01:19:24 -
[21] - Quote
For citizen science they're using an algorithm to determine the accuracy of humans...? |
Annika Inari
Unicorn Rampage
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.16 06:44:28 -
[22] - Quote
Whatever "scientist" marked these transits needs to be fired.
http://imgur.com/a/tbjjA |
Joseph Bramah
In Dock We Trust
1
|
Posted - 2017.07.16 09:14:31 -
[23] - Quote
missing second planet in evaluation example: http://i.imgur.com/Oe5zXAt.png |
Joseph Bramah
In Dock We Trust
1
|
Posted - 2017.07.16 09:17:38 -
[24] - Quote
I doubt that they mark themself. Probably they apply the data for real known planets on those suns, and expect that we found it with those curves.
Or I don't have any other answer why there are so hard evaluation examples, even when you fold their answer, it still gives flat average without any pit. |
Silent Twilight
Red October.
1
|
Posted - 2017.07.25 12:06:36 -
[25] - Quote
I have doubts about the theoretical basis for the analysis. We are given a month long intensity graph, and we are able to mark transits with a period fractions a of day. But how close to a star should a planet be and how fast should it rotate to have such period? For comparison, Mercury's orbital period is 88 days. I actually tried to estimate the distance from Sun (semi-major axis) for Mercury to have 1-day period. Since semi-major axis length is proportional to (orbital period)^2/3, 88^2/3 is roughly 20 - so Mercury would have to be ~20 times closer to the Sun, which seems too close. Not sure if my calculations are correct, though, not my field of study.
On the other hand, there's basically no way for us to distinguish between a small drop in intensity due to a transiting planet or due to a rotating sunspot(s) or some other process. However, I've found some info (like this article https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.09042.pdf ) that several classes of stars have rotation periods of a few (1-7) days. So I tend to think that those control samples with lots of often questionable 'transits' are related to the star itself rather than an exoplanet. Which means that we probably shouldn't be able to mark anything with a period less than... um... 1-2 days or something? Or even more, if we are looking for planets, not just any periodic drops. Would save us some time when analyzing very noisy samples with no obvious dips.
As Blade Darth said, sudden jumps in intensity do this. It seems, the "detrend" option gives some kind of the derivative of the star intensity graph, and the derivative is sensitive to any sudden change compared to neighbor points. Without knowing the exact method they use to detrend, there is no way to tell for sure, but I'd be very cautios around rapid rises and falls since they seem to cause false positives in detrended graph. |
Daemin Raphael
Red Diamond Industrial Association
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.25 14:06:52 -
[26] - Quote
Not sure if this is the right place to post this... but has anyone else been having lowered rewards all of a sudden?
See this image, I should be getting 83k but instead it's 66k.
http://i.imgur.com/n7IkZHN.png |
Neuntausend
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1766
|
Posted - 2017.07.25 15:53:31 -
[27] - Quote
Joseph Bramah wrote:Or I don't have any other answer why there are so hard evaluation examples, even when you fold their answer, it still gives flat average without any pit. They aren't hard. At this point, I can say with confidence that many of them are just wrong. It can't be in their best interest either. For a while now I thought, maybe they are right, and I'm overlooking something, so I started seeing transits in the tiniest irregularities, marking nonsense transits everywhere. But really, transits should be fairly rare, they said so themselves in the tutorial. And I suspect, if a sample looks like there is no transit, then there is probably no transit there, no matter what the evaluation sample says. Just ignore them, they are wrong.
And if they used an algorithm to create these evaluation samples - shame on them! I reckon they want proper data from us, so they could at least put in the effort to give us proper data in the first place. |
scientia et artis
Quod Artis et Scientia
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.26 04:01:42 -
[28] - Quote
What is up with cutting the ISK payouts in half? |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |