Ever since the wu's have been increased in length the current batch of searches on the front page look pretty poor. Are we really doing valid science?
/ 
Reply
Quote
Ever since the wu's have been increased in length the current batch of searches on the front page look pretty poor. Are we really doing valid science?
If by poor you mean 'insanely good' then I agree with you; remember the values are negative, and the closer to zero the better - that is, if the results are valid. This is such a huge leap from where we were earlier that I've been wondering whether they could really be valid as well.
/ Reply
Quote
Ever since the wu's have been increased in length the current batch of searches on the front page look pretty poor. Are we really doing valid science?
It looks to me like the searches finished and the graphs haven't been changed to the newer searches yet.
/ Reply
Quote
Ever since the wu's have been increased in length the current batch of searches on the front page look pretty poor. Are we really doing valid science?
If by poor you mean 'insanely good' then I agree with you; remember the values are negative, and the closer to zero the better - that is, if the results are valid. This is such a huge leap from where we were earlier that I've been wondering whether they could really be valid as well.
No, I mean they are all straight lines. Not much evolution occurring there. But that may be just my misinterpretation.
/ Reply
Quote
I could be wrong, but I think that's just because the 'worst' values are so far away from the 'best' values. Even if both are improving, they're not improving enough to show up on the graph. But I'm very suspicious of those 'best' values - they seem too good to be true.
/ Reply
Quote
The graphs have been flatlined for some time now. Are new searches going to be added?
____________
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.
/ Reply
Quote
I could be wrong, but I think that's just because the 'worst' values are so far away from the 'best' values. Even if both are improving, they're not improving enough to show up on the graph. But I'm very suspicious of those 'best' values - they seem too good to be true.
This does happen a lot. One of the members of the search gets stuck somewhere but the rest of them keep progressing. We're also trying to get very accurate results (past 8-9 decimal places), so that doesn't help them look like they're progressing much either :)
____________
/ Reply
Quote