Current Searches?!

Author	Message
The Gas Giant Send message Joined: 24 Dec 07 Posts: 1947 Credit: 240,884,648 RAC: 0	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: / Reply Quote

Emanuel Send message Joined: 18 Nov 07 Posts: 280 Credit: 2,442,757 RAC: 0	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: / Reply Quote

banditwolf Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0	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: / Reply Quote

The Gas Giant Send message Joined: 24 Dec 07 Posts: 1947 Credit: 240,884,648 RAC: 0	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: / Reply Quote

Emanuel Send message Joined: 18 Nov 07 Posts: 280 Credit: 2,442,757 RAC: 0	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: / Reply Quote

banditwolf Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0	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: / Reply Quote

Travis Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0	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: / Reply Quote