puzzle 1561 scoring bug

Case number:699969-2005580
Opened by:christioanchauvin
Opened on:Monday, August 13, 2018 - 23:58
Last modified:Monday, August 20, 2018 - 20:16

same as 1465,the registered distant score jumps to unfiltered amount.
local score stays ok.

(Mon, 08/13/2018 - 23:58  |  8 comments)

robgee's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 9 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 07/26/2013

Same problem as above.
Using MicroIdealize 4.0 at low, stopped it, switched to recipe that does not use filter code at all and the unfiltered score became registered on scoreboard.
In main, using tracks.

Joined: 11/03/2011

it happened to me when filter gave negative values and i executed helix rebuild 5.1

LociOiling's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 hours 9 min ago. Offline
Joined: 12/27/2012

I'm not seeing anything deducted for residue count on 1561. Maybe they've switched to "always positive" filters, as jflat06 mentions here: https://fold.it/portal/node/2004641

Further research needed....

LociOiling's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 hours 9 min ago. Offline
Joined: 12/27/2012

Not the definitive answer, but 1561 starts with 1800 bonus points.

That includes an 800-point bonus for residue count.

As you add segments, it deducts from the bonus, 32 points per segment.

You can add 25 segments, which exactly cancels the 800 point bonus.

I'm assuming the Interaction Energy and SS Design filters work in a similar way.

This is what they're calling "positive-only filter bonuses". (Or at least "non-negative".)

This doesn't explain the problem with "filter off" scores being registered on the scoreboard.

bertro's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 1 week ago. Offline
Joined: 05/02/2011
Groups: Beta Folders

isn't that 1563?

LociOiling's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 hours 9 min ago. Offline
Joined: 12/27/2012

Yes, I meant 1563 in the comment about the nonzero filters scoring.

phi16's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 hours 7 min ago. Offline
Joined: 12/23/2008

If I remember how the story was told to me, fold.it did not do well until the developers reversed good scores from getting lower (negative numbers) to positive scores getting higher. The old system was much like golf, where a score of 95 is not as good as a score of 85. When the developers turned it around, more players were interested in getting higher scores. Are you listening Professional Golfers Association?

I think the positive filters make sense, to reward objectives achieved with positive results. Let's try it.


bkoep's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 hours 1 min ago. Offline
Joined: 11/15/2012
Groups: Foldit Staff

Thanks, all, for the feedback! We're still unsure why some clients are registering "unfiltered" scores with the server. That definitely should not be happening, and we're looking into it.

The shift away from "negative filters" and towards "positive objectives" is unrelated, and should not have any effect on how the client reports scores to the server. However, one consequence of the "positive objectives" system is that disabling an objective will typically decrease your scoreā€”so, even if a client does report an invalid, "unfiltered" score, it will not overtake the valid score on the leaderboards for those puzzles.


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, Boehringer Ingelheim, RosettaCommons