How much information are we expected to share with the rest of the Folding community?

[SteveL]

I'm pretty much a newbie at this, so keep that in mind, but I think sharing scripts is a great idea. I'm not as interested in getting into the top 10 as I am in simply improving my score–and in learning about how proteins fold. (My final ranks still seems to vary between 30 and 50.) I study the scripts I download and try to figure out why they work well or not, and in return, if I ever get good enough to create a script that really smokes, I'll definitely upload it so that anyone can use it. That's the least I can do after making use of others' work.

When I find a script that helps my score significantly, I usually write to the author and thank him or her. Some players are incredibly helpful: Madde in particular suggested numerous scripts that are useful in various situations. My real goal is to learn about proteins, and I've already started looking into some of the textbooks. If I rank up over some of the stars (Boots, Bletchley, Marie Suchard, Tlaloc, etc., and many others), it generally lasts for only 2 or 3 minutes, but it's a thrill nevertheless, and that's all I need to keep playing. The way I see it, the only important competition is with myself.

[BootsMcGraw]

Just for grins, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, and take the position that it's okay to share information; and that it's equally acceptable not to share it.

It seems we might have forgotten what the purpose of the FoldIt project actually is. It is about trying to discover methods to help program computers to more effectively predict protein tertiary structure. The game itself is ancillary to that purpose, and serves only as the vehicle through which these discoveries might be made.

I would think the Baker Lab doesn't give a rat's patoot who did what, or whether they used "superscripts", hand folding, or The Force to do it. All that likely matters is results, and how they were achieved.

Please allow me some license to use a fast-food analogy. "McDonalds" is analogous to the top scoring teams and individuals. "Burger joints" are the lesser scoring teams and individuals. "Hamburger" is analogous to folding predictive methods; the "consumer" are the folks at the Baker Lab. "Restaurants" are the entire community of folderers; and "sales" is analogous to their scores or ranks.

Is McDonalds obligated to disclose their methods of success to the mom-and-pop burger joints, because "the playing field really isn't level"?

No. And why does it matter, except to the jealous? In the consumer's quest for the best hamburger, all restaurants, no matter how they prepare, cook, or serve, have something of value to offer. It doesn't matter to the consumer which one has the largest sales, as long as he eventually gets what he seeks. He will review each and every restaurant, and then decide for himself what is best for him.

So you don't know or have what McDonalds has? So what! Go invent it, yourself! If you don't have the knowledge, go learn it. If you don't have the time, go make it. If you can't or won't do that, make the best of what you do have. No matter what your circumstances are: high; low; or in between, you have the innate ability to create. You might just come up with the formula that trumps all.

It's all about the consumer, fellow folderers, not about how well we restaurants are doing. Wisdom suggests we instead concentrate on creating the hamburger the consumer will want the most.

[xiando]

exactly. From the perspective of whether or not a protein is folded, it doesn't matter how it is done, as long as it is done well.

The issue really boils down to whether or not Baker is presenting the results as examples and/or affirmation of the "human element", as specified in the faq. If so, then the apparent prevalence of largely computer crunched proteins calls any such claim into question.

As to it's use in solo competition, the use of any such "superscripts" is not analogous to McDonalds. It is analogous to copying someone else's homework and calling it your own. I believe there's a word for that, but it escapes me right now.

[xiando]

that would be by anyone other than the author of said superscript

[Deleted user]

There were only 12 evolvers on the puzzle just closed, 185 solo participants.

That seems to indicate that everyone is simply running up their soloist scores using the recipes du jour, or the superscript developed for use by specific teams.

Also take a look at the scripts that have been shared - there are only a handful of people who are really writing original scripts, everything else is derivative.

So, each puzzle is overwhelming the result of people all running the same group of scripts. The scripts have become so good at making points, there is no incentive to spend the time exploring on your own and experimenting to see what works. You end up left in the dust at the bottom of the score heap. And remember, this is billed as a game, a competition, so it's the competitive nature of people to do what is allowed to win, in this case running scripts.

[Crashguard303]

I believe what Bletchley Park wrote, he convinced me.
It's the hardware, which can make a regular script look like a superscript.

But anyway, it would be interesting to save the recipes' names which were used for a solution and to show them, too, if player's name and score with the best solution is published.
This would also be informative for improving ROSETTA.

[marie_s]

I start playing 2 years ago.
See the top soloists of the week, most play for more than 1 year, frequently more than 2. Many play very often.
I think scoring rewards personnel experience with assistance of tips learned in chat, wiki and scripts.

I think the equilbrium between competition and cooperation is good but reward of innovation is difficult, here I see no other reward than the assessments by peers. (reward of innnovation is always difficult : licence, copyright, … are not perfect systems).

The barriers to entry for new players are high. They are not knowlegde in biology or big hardware (CFC have a not so good PC) but the sum of knowledge to be of the best and some knowledge in computer language to understand scripts.

So, new players, learn for yourself (we play for many months because we discover new trics every weeks), with an eye on the chat, ask a question for time to time, we will be happy to answer.

[Crashguard303]

I know players, who have only very rudimental script knowledge as they told me, so they can't write superscripts, but do good folding jobs, way better than me.
They have even won some contests by using scripts just as they are here available for download.

[Deleted user]

There are always going to be the lucky folds that outperform the scripts every now and then, but the overwhelming truth is that the jealously guarded group scripts have an advantage over those that have to make do without these tools.

It's very much like the early days when there were people folding on contest puzzles using beta tools.

The "haves" are not sharing with the "have nots" and it is creating a very unfair playing field.

[Deleted user]

If your group scripts are not an advantage, then go ahead and make all scripts public. Then we'll find out.