Proposal: Puzzle points based upon the scientific value of puzzle

Case number:699969-997355
Topic:General
Opened by:CheezWhiz
Status:Open
Type:Suggestion
Opened on:Friday, March 28, 2014 - 03:08
Last modified:Monday, March 31, 2014 - 21:31

I assume that not all puzzles are of equal scientific value to the Foldit team, and that some puzzles are of more value than others. I would like to propose that the puzzles be given varying numbers of points based upon the scientific value of each puzzle. Maybe something simple like ranking the puzzles 50, 100, or 150 points.

(Fri, 03/28/2014 - 03:08  |  11 comments)


Joined: 04/19/2009

The devs have done this already... please Google: "worth 150 points" site:fold.it

Joined: 09/19/2011
Groups: None

@auntdeen: Yes, I remember some of those puzzles in the past, and that's part of the reason I made this suggestion. If I recall correctly, the higher point values were assigned to puzzles that were more important. But I haven't seen that lately, all of the puzzles have been worth 100 points, regardless of the difficulty level or level of importance. I'd like to see this happening again. I have a limited amount of time and computer resources, and can't play every puzzle. Therefore, I would prefer to be able to focus my effort on puzzles that have the highest degree of scientific merit.

Joined: 04/19/2009

Well said, especially with many players having to cut back their clients since NC.

I doubt that the devs will be able to do much with this until after CASP, so be sure to bump this feedback up when CASP is finished!

Joined: 09/19/2011
Groups: None

Thank you, will do. And I'm very much looking forward to CASP. :)

spmm's picture
User offline. Last seen 37 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 08/05/2010
Groups: Void Crushers

The prediction category contains all of the revisiting puzzles, which seems a tad strange to me as these puzzles have been around for many years and are available from the PDB.
Some of the players will also actually have access to the original high scoring poses from the original puzzles. This may or may not be an advantage.

Not a lot of 'prediction' involved, but perhaps I am not fully understanding the meaning of the word prediction in the context.

Also given a known model, it is not impossible to write scripts to copy the pose and distances, or just copy from another player.

These methods are of course really inappropriate. my $0.02.

Joined: 09/24/2012
Groups: Go Science

Players were immediately banned in the past for writing this kind of script.
The idea being that we "blind" try again with the new tools, but of course, for who takes time, it's always possible to find some info (also pictures) of the revisited puzzles.

From the scientific point of view, I suppose these marginal behaviors add to the diversity of approaches and solutions, which is not bad (certainly not for a "picture" inspiration).

But of course, from the enjoyment and prayers perspective - and sustainability of Foldit - too much copy-paste possibilities (for rare experts) would be detrimental. Fortunately, it's possible to ban.

IF this behavior would be suspected to be to frequent, revisiting puzzles could then receive less points (50 ?) in order to reduce the temptation to cheat ?

But I think the real risk of cheating could remain mainly for the top players (like in sport), among them a very small percentage (+ opportunities are needed + complicity). Well, the risk seems quite 0 for most of the puzzles.

Conclusion: No change ...

Joined: 09/24/2012
Groups: Go Science

However, I would be interested to be informed on the quality (if measured) of our latest result.

There are several possibilities:

1-A star or something like that (after the expiration of the puzzle, in line with the score) showing which results were considered for testing by the researchers or Roseta@home. I would be proud to see that I contributed to a solution that was tested, even if, in the ranking, I/we did not rank to the top.
Note: Non top solutions (shared with the scientists) should then be added to the list (with no point - thus a duplicate of the player name, one with his/her top solution, ranking and points, another with only the ranking and the star, without points, when a solution was tested).

2-If the solution pasted the test, a gold star would even be more exciting

Additional points or other kinds or rewards seem not be very exciting to me, neither practicable. But if practicable, the following would be exciting:

3-A new medal in the achievements? ('Junior research assistant', 'master research assistant' ...) when your solutions or related evolved solutions received a certain number of gold stars ?

Joined: 09/19/2011
Groups: None

I like these ideas as well. Aside from a few select blog entries, we don't often get feedback on our puzzle solutions. The more feedback, the better, in my opinion! :)

Joined: 07/21/2013
Groups: Beta Folders

In a puzzle with Helices and loops, some people get high scores by making the amino acids all loops.

If this protein was a critical Mouse protein that had some biological function in the Mouse, would changing the Secondary Structure make the protein incapable of performing its critical function?

If a foldit player uses Mutate to change the amino acids would it also make protein of performing its critical function?

If this is true, its just going from useful to useless.

spmm's picture
User offline. Last seen 37 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 08/05/2010
Groups: Void Crushers

It may be that a script changed the segments to loops, this is often done by end game scripts. People often loose their SS at this point.

Rebuilds will often get better results if the SS is changed to loops, just have to change them back again later.

Mutate is used in design puzzles and the approach and goals are different to the standard proteins.

Joined: 04/15/2012
Groups: Beta Folders

And often when changes to loops, I'd imagine, the protein is already pretty stable so there shouldn't be much of an impact on that front. Could be wrong though.

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