Yes d, and thanks for this space to comment developers
I would love to have puzzles where everyone can work together for the scientific benefit. Perhaps something similar to evolver but where everyone can see what everyone is doing. I feel that there are enough players around who would have fun in this area of play and at the same time feel that they are part of the scientific value.
Competing for points is cool…nice for the vanity…but then so would the sense of being more of, "part of something greater."
Sometimes I want to stop playing because I'm not sure how much science is actually benefiting. Inquisitiveness…or something…keeps me going.My work and my family life and even my spiritual life are affected by the time spent on foldit so I would like to be sure that its of the greatest benefit.
porky
Here is my list:
Denovo,contacts,ed, qttn combined in different ways.
Surely if you have the ed and contact points, then these would be actual proteins. The scientific value would increase dramatically. If threading would add value then that too.
the other idea is that in ed, if you cannot remove the unwanted parts of the cloud…then perhaps some docking or free docking can be arranged with parts of the other proteins included. These other parts could be fixed or not fixed depending on what is possible.
Please also only one design puzzle at a time…they slow the computers down a lot.
Thanks again for asking
porky
So please give us science puzzles. If needed, revisit old science puzzles or maybe make a contest on current unsolved science questions with the best solution(s) of past puzzles as a starting point.
I have started to work again on abeta myself, no points, just for science.
I agree, it's much more motivating to try to work, on a regular basis, on unsolved puzzles, with or without anything that can help (ED, contacts …), or on designs with some science goal (might be diseases like ebola, or just pure science in other designs).
But I'm not against working just for developing better tools, strategies and algorithms (revisiting old solved puzzles in this context is ok).
I really enjoyed that one and AAP won - it was a bit biggar! as Wisk would say.
I would like to be able to compare my 1028 solo with Bitspawn's even though we 'know the answer' we can't always make the answer work perfectly in foldit space, and I would like to know what the native score is in foldit, cos then I would try harder.
And what Bletchley Park and Bitspawn said above.
thanking you
So I'd be interested to visit famous old puzzles like 421, just for fun competing against old retired players like aap. :)
What is the point of these puzzles? Is the native known to be completely different from what is given? I rarely get above top 150 in these puzzles. I do much better in de novo puzzles. So, I thin people are just optimizing the heck out of the given start. But is the given start completely wrong?
I would like to see more comparison between Revisit Puzzles and their original versions. Did we do any better the second time? http://fold.it/portal/node/1998460 and http://fold.it/portal/node/988112 discussed some ideas along these lines.
I'm not a huge fan of revisiting old puzzles and don't play them. There've been many of them recently, all accompanied by exactly the same comments "This is a throwback puzzle to the early days of Foldit", etc. It makes me wonder if the results from these puzzles are valuable or if they are just put up as "make work" puzzles. Since the scoring function has changed players can't even usefully compare their scores against the original anymore.
One thing I'd certainly like to see more of is feedback, even if it's negative. If results from a puzzle or category of puzzles are useless, please say so.
