Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Current Searches?!


Advanced search

Message boards : MilkyWay@home Science : Current Searches?!
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
ProfileThe Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 34143 - Posted: 3 Dec 2009, 13:13:51 UTC

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?
ID: 34143 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Emanuel

Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 07
Posts: 280
Credit: 2,442,757
RAC: 0
2 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 34145 - Posted: 3 Dec 2009, 13:40:11 UTC - in response to Message 34143.  

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.
ID: 34145 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilebanditwolf
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 2425
Credit: 524,164
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 34148 - Posted: 3 Dec 2009, 16:15:15 UTC - in response to Message 34143.  

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.
ID: 34148 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileThe Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 34154 - Posted: 3 Dec 2009, 19:25:49 UTC - in response to Message 34145.  

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.
ID: 34154 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Emanuel

Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 07
Posts: 280
Credit: 2,442,757
RAC: 0
2 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 34163 - Posted: 3 Dec 2009, 22:44:30 UTC - in response to Message 34154.  

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.
ID: 34163 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilebanditwolf
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 2425
Credit: 524,164
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 35305 - Posted: 11 Jan 2010, 2:11:30 UTC

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.
ID: 35305 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileTravis
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 07
Posts: 2046
Credit: 26,480
RAC: 0
10 thousand credit badge14 year member badge
Message 35449 - Posted: 11 Jan 2010, 5:50:47 UTC - in response to Message 34163.  

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 :)
ID: 35449 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : MilkyWay@home Science : Current Searches?!

©2021 Astroinformatics Group