Separate evo and solo

Case number:699969-2000303
Topic:General
Opened by:spmm
Status:Open
Type:Suggestion
Opened on:Sunday, February 1, 2015 - 10:29
Last modified:Thursday, February 12, 2015 - 13:37

I suggest that, as has been requested before, as soon as you open an evo you are no longer able to work on your solo solution.

To allow the soloists to contribute to the evo just delay the close of the evo version of the puzzle by a set number of hours.

Yes people can still share pictures and so on but it will make things sharper all round.

That would also let the solist engage more in getting the best from group solution(s).

(Sun, 02/01/2015 - 10:29  |  19 comments)


spmm's picture
User offline. Last seen 36 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 08/05/2010
Groups: Void Crushers

Of course if galaxie and gmn the only two people who have been rank 1 on both solo and evo would like to tell us all how they do It I am sure we would be all ears.
Perhaps a Black Belt Folding session would be appropriate?

Joined: 08/09/2010

It is not enough

Forbid solo if you have been evoing isn't enough. For example, a small puzzle as 1047. I say to members of my group that the best solution is an helix between segments x and y, and all the others can copy my idea.
My proposal is: for members of a group is forbidden to talk to each other.

It's a joke ;) More seriously, we make us better players learning with the ideas of others. It is no coincidence the most of monomers with the same layout. A group is not only to share recipes, if there is an impossible tail and someone finds a solution he says it to the others. And you say it sharing your solution.

If I am in a group, and I don't want the others copy my solution, then I don't share it. It is decision of the soloist. Spmm, The idea behind your words will end up leading us to think that the generosity of soloists in a group should be regulated, because it harms to the soloist of other groups. I think it is absurd.
The ulterior thought is that the fact that the groups exist harm others groups. The vicious circle of the absurd.

About what you say about Gmn, and Galaxie.
I remember when Galaxie was invited to join AD, we were amazed that someone out of a group could reach as soloist rank as she had then. And Gmn, REALLY???? five years folding, number three of Hall of Fame, do you really think Gmn needs to copy something from someone?? :-!! The thing that should be regulated here is the lack of respect between players.

spmm's picture
User offline. Last seen 36 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 08/05/2010
Groups: Void Crushers

Oh and of course the evo in question - is shared with the whole community perhaps? Yes generally people will cluster to the highest scoring solution initially, the more intrepid may find rewards elsewhere.

Joined: 09/24/2012
Groups: Go Science

It's a potential solution for "pure soloists" issue (see http://fold.it/portal/node/998335#comment-29687), also to the fact that if you want to be evolver n°1, you need to be in a top group.

But, with this system, most top solo players would wait the last minute to try to evolve anything (otherwise they'll loose on their solo ranking).

When a group finds a promizing solution, it's good to have the experimented players on board: I prefer then your latest suggestion (1 day public evolving). Personally, I would find it exciting.

spmm's picture
User offline. Last seen 36 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 08/05/2010
Groups: Void Crushers

Many soloists don't care to spend a lot of time doing evo, or just don't have much time, or their solution may be stuck. Something like this has the benefit of letting everyone share in evo, especially new players or those who choose to not join a group. Much more inclusive, rather than evo being the preserve of the same handful of players.
Would also address the frequently asked request by newer players to have a way to see the top scoring puzzles.

Joined: 06/17/2010

You can back to solo in 2 easy steps:
- reset puzzle
- restore best
:)

spmm's picture
User offline. Last seen 36 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 08/05/2010
Groups: Void Crushers

not if doing that technically forces it into evo mode once you have opened a solution by any other player.

andrewxc's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 09/21/2011
Groups: Gargleblasters

People don't run a client for each puzzle, one solo, and one evo (after a decent start) at the same time...? No? Just me...?

Angus's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 day 22 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 06/04/2008
Groups: Beta Folders

Of course! Why wouldn't you do that?

gitwut's picture
User offline. Last seen 37 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 05/18/2012
Groups: Contenders

I don't like the idea of "overlap staggering" solo/evo. That's a limited assumption as to how different soloists/teams approach evos. I usually wait until the last day or two before starting an evo but there are many on my team that begin evos as soon as one is posted.

Proposal:
It would seem fairer to me that each puzzle be issued first as non-shared and after expiring, be issued a second time for evo purposes. The first puzzle would yield solo points, the second puzzle would yield evo points.

In the current system, there are cases where some soloists work slowly and surge close to puzzle expiry and don't get evo'd due to time constraints. The proposed method would allow time to evaluate more possible evo candidates.

With the proposed system careful planning during the solo phase (saving solutions at stages useful for later evo), more useful data for review by devs and/or for creating instructional materials would be available. It definitely seems more in line with the scientific method than the current (frantic, haphazard) system.

Angus's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 day 22 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 06/04/2008
Groups: Beta Folders

I guess I can't imagine what the purpose of this request would accomplish ? Why wouldn't people want to work on their solo and evo solutions at the same time?

gitwut's picture
User offline. Last seen 37 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 05/18/2012
Groups: Contenders

Angus, not sure which post you're referring to, but there are many reasons not to work on solo and evo at the same time. Primarily, so that you don't have to split your time between two puzzles. Some people don't have powerful enough computers to run anywhere from 6 to 8 clients simultaneously. It would also be beneficial to have hindsight (and leisure) to find which of many solutions show the most promise for evo. Some people might be quite knowledgeable in setting up a design and very poor at optimizing it.

If you're referring to spmm's initial post, I think that it is a proposed solution for suspected (rampant) solo plagiarism via evos.

Angus's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 day 22 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 06/04/2008
Groups: Beta Folders

There's been lots of rumors about this so-called solo plagarism, but no real proof that this is happening. Foldit was supposed to have put safeguards in place last year (or before) when the rules were changed about using scripts to copy solutions.

If anyone thinks that just "looking at" an EVO solution, then trying to replicate it is cheating, that's ridiculous. It's hard enough to do QTTN puzzles now when shown the native. If someone wants to go to a pile of work to try to manually replicate a solution, then let 'em try. I have no issue with that.

However, if they are using scripts to match a solo to an evo solution loaded as a guide, I DO have a problem with that type of automated copying. I think it's against the intent of the rules.

Joined: 09/21/2011
Groups: Void Crushers

Imho, there is nothing wrong with using a solution of another teammate to improve a solo.
BUT, using that one as a guide is not the way to get a solo solution.
That is the hole that should be plugged.
See also my suggestion on this subject: http://fold.it/portal/node/1998890 that has a lot of support.

Angus's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 day 22 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 06/04/2008
Groups: Beta Folders

Can you explain how this is being done? Are there illegal scripts out there able to make a solo exactly match an evo solution?

I fail to see what this "hole" is that needs to be plugged.

Joined: 09/24/2012
Groups: Go Science

Hello Angus,

One recipe claimed to be able to do this:
http://fold.it/portal/recipe/45935

The author was banned and the recipe was deleted.

I doubt a recipe can exact copy a shared solution. Moreover, a potential cheater would be limited to shared solutions in top - and open - groups. That makes many conditions for a potential cheater to be high in the solo ranking.

Sure we can trust the competitive aspect of the game.

Joined: 05/19/2009
Groups: Contenders

I often run evos in order to advance a teammate's solo. In the end it advances the team as a whole. It is like giving some of your food and water to other runners in the group in order to lift the group as a whole.

johnmitch's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 hours 29 min ago. Offline
Joined: 12/28/2010
Groups: None

Rules for the Foldit community
Updated 7/18/2014
.....
.....
Gameplay Guidelines

What is cheating?

Any method of copying data from other players or external sources in order to increase your solo score is cheating. If you'd like to collaborate or expand upon another person's work, you must do so as an evolver. Cheating circumvents the intention of Foldit and jeopardizes its scientific goals.

Joined: 09/24/2012
Groups: Go Science

Indeed if we read carefully the Community rules here:
https://fold.it/portal/communityrules

"Do not use scripts to copy data from other players or external sources. "

"Yes, you may copy or attempt to reproduce secondary structures. In addition, you may copy sequences inside a design puzzle."
There is a recipe for that: https://fold.it/portal/recipe/38147

"Copying tertiary and/or quaternary structures from other players or third parties is forbidden."

What should be further precised is the last paragraph:

"Is it ok to attempt to reproduce another person’s structure visually?
Learning from other players and sharing strategies is acceptable and encouraged. However, remember that diversity helps Foldit's scientific goals. Please keep this is mind as you collaborate with others."

I interpreted this as "copying visually or with the guide is tolerated" providing it keeps diversity, meaning that if you do it on early days then improve the solution with other means, you'll not necessarily gain more points and still possibly contribute to science. Of course if you do it the latest day, this would clearilly be only to get higher score.

If we interprete this more conservatively, timo's and spmm suggestions would be right: don't allow guides from other players. (it would be difficult to forbit and even verify a visual copy).

Example:
In the recent Human Insulin puzzle, there were various ways to make bridges. I tried many of them.
Finally, I went to look on internet and I found the "real" bridges here. Of course, the remaining SS is not known (there are various versions on internet), but this is quite good to know! Is that cheating?

Moreover, you can look at the images of the top solutions in past puzzles on the Wiki. Visual copying these: is it cheating? I guess no (because all players have access to the same info), but this could be clarified.

In the mean time, my team colleague mirp found the best solution of our group, with other bridges. I tried these ones also. Was that cheating?
That was at mid game. Afterwards, I did not check anymore (I think my best solution was the "real" one, the best group solution was the "other" one, but i'm not sure: may be my best solution was with mirp's bridges: then I gained on my solo score based on his share - sorry if it was the case).

My feeling is that all these tries are as much of my engagement in the play and produced different results, potentially better for Science but worst for "pure" solo rankings. (Note that I then whrite in my shares something like "visual copy of solution 9600 + edrw + hand+ at + gab etc" - beeing transparent for the original designer).

Sitemap

Developed by: UW Center for Game Science, UW Institute for Protein Design, Northeastern University, Vanderbilt University Meiler Lab, UC Davis
Supported by: DARPA, NSF, NIH, HHMI, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, RosettaCommons