Bump.
It can be done from data send to server? Kind of movie?
It would be really interesting.

I would note that if you want to copy human strategies into algorithms, it's very helpful for it being easy to record human strategies.

As far as space issues go, you don't have to safe an image every minute. You can just safe all human input and 10-20 random protein images that are sent to the server. At the beginning maybe every 10 minutes and afterwards every hour.

Chess and Starcraftt have not the goal to find new ways to solve real life problems.

The goal of Foldit is to explore the maximum number of strategies.
If you only copy a good strategies or a few that give high scores, you will not add anything to the goal of the game.
If you like the game, find your own strategy, create a new team or at least join an existing team for inspiration.
Note that some players choose to share a picture their solution at the end of each puzzles and some players choose to share their recipes, we wait to see yours.
In the wiki, you have videos in 101 Puzzl Levels and Types and in Puzzle 668 and many tips.

It's that old chestnut: high scores vs viable proteins. Personally speaking, I use the scores not as trying to beat others, but to tell me that my protein could be better. As we have been told before, the highest scoring proteins are not necessarily the best ones.

The goal of Foldit is to explore the maximum number of strategies.

That would be a pretty stupid goal. The actual goal is:

We’re collecting data to find out if humans' pattern-recognition and puzzle-solving abilities make them more efficient than existing computer programs at pattern-folding tasks. If this turns out to be true, we can then teach human strategies to computers and fold proteins faster than ever!

Humans' pattern-recognition skills simply work better if you give the human specific examples of how other humans solve proteins.
Chess is a field where we have a lot of research about how humans develop good pattern-recognition skills related to chess.

There no reason to ignore the way humans get good at pattern matching if your goal is to have humans beat computers at pattern matching.

Note that some players choose to share a picture their solution at the end of each puzzles

The picture doesn't help that much to get humans to get better.

It's that old chestnut: high scores vs viable proteins.

No, it actually hasn't anything to do with "high scores vs viable proteins". Seeing replays that produce "viable proteins" that don't achieve maximum scores could be just as valuable as watching replays that try to maximize scores.

One more video made by Madde
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-EDdA7Ddgcs