Suggestion: a complete change of the social structure of Foldit

Started by Ignacio

Ignacio Lv 1

Hi all,

After much thinking, I have considered it is the time for sharing a few ideas on the game. They are quite extreme, I hope you excuse me for that.

A significant previous point is that I have always played only as a soloist and without using any information from the rest of my team. That is, I provide solutions to the team when they are good enough, but I never look at a solution by other player, until the puzzle is finished.

This has given me a good independent idea of how possible is for a single player to compete with multiple players by using just his creative skills. Playing like that, I think I got to the 4th place among soloist once, and now I am 23rd and improving, after I came back, just for the CASP puzzles. I recently was first in two CASP puzzles, showing that single players can sometimes outperform all the other players, even if the are collaborating.

This is a simple demonstration that teams are not absolutely required. On the contrary, I think they can freeze creativity: within a team, people often just copy what other people is doing. By working independently, I can come up with novel structures that nobody else has seen.

True, I often greatly fail, sometimes ending 50th. That is the problem of playing totally alone. Of course, I agree that collaboration/competence may greatly improve overall results, if properly done.

Now, a second important point i that it would have been impossible for me to play at that level without the sophisticated recipes that I have, many of them group-specific. I recognize the important contribution of some people in my group Go Science, which has been critical. They have come up with great novel recipes that makes us a competitive team right now. However, and most significantly, an important group of my recipes, sad is to recognize that, were stolen from another team about some time ago, in an affair that I am certain is well remembered by many. That robbery certainly helped me, I just could not compete with the top players before it. Terrible, but, in my opinion, another good demonstration that teams do not necessarily help.

With this background, I have concluded that the whole structure of our social network is wrong. It is based on the idea that competence between teams will help to improve the overall results, but I think the complete opposite is true: open collaboration among as many players as possible will improve the results. Right now, this is becoming a competence between just a few top members in a few top teams. These players have great advantage over the rest, based on having the privileged information of group-only recipes.

My experience leads me to think that just a few players (clearly less than 50, perhaps less than 25) have the skills required for systematically coming up with intuitive solutions that are good enough as to lead to the top final results. These top players will certainly not win all puzzles, because some other member may be lucky enough as to sometimes hit the jackpot. Also, skilled but still almost trivial use of the recipes may be enough to win some puzzles, especially if they are small/easy. But even with those exceptions, it is obvious that just a few top players win most often, and most often are among the top soloists. This is because they invent the best solutions.

How often these top players are in a group without the right tools to fully explore the solutions that they come up with is for me the main question unsolved in Foldit. That was my experience when our group, Go Science, started: we just did not have the right programs to compete. Once we got them (in part an illicit affair, as I mentioned above), it was much easier. The same happens now, differences among groups exist that make competition unfair.

I am sorry to say that the best thing to do now to be a top Foldit player may be perhaps something like this: go to several groups, steal all recipes, go then to the top group and copy the best players in that group as much as possible. This will make you a top player, without too much effort and with no creativity. Is this reasonable?.

To solve the problems that I right now see, I suggest the following, which is something that would certainly require a change of mentality, but I am also certain would improve overall results:

1) Completely eliminate groups.
2) Completely eliminate private recipes: everybody has the same tools.

These two make all players equal, increasing competence among players, not groups, and avoiding the problems caused by closed groups. It is clear that it is best if all players have the same tools.

3) Players start each puzzle by competing as soloists.
4) The best solutions for each puzzle (let's say the top ten) generated by the soloists, are accessible to all players at all times.
5) However, if a player gets access to any of those solutions, it ends the soloist period and enters the evolver period. From then on, he/she gets only evolver points, no more soloist improvement is possible. Of course, an evolver can move from one solution to another if it turns out to be better.
6) Last hours of a puzzle: all players automatically shifted to evolvers. Timing for this shift related to puzzle difficulty (or even better: how much improvement has occurred in the previous hours, if that was possible to evaluate).
7) Just as it is now, keep independent classifications for top soloists and top evolvers.

3) to 7) allow all players to try to improve the best solutions at all times. If they are clearly failing as soloist, they can try their hands at evolving the top solutions (not the top solutions of a team, that are often quite bad). Also, soloist are rewarded by INDEPENDENT WORK, not by peeking at the top solution of their group buddies and correcting the solo solution (if you want to do that, you must be an evolver, period). All this should lead to a higher degree of diversity in the solutions generated. Finally 6) leads to all players concentrating in just one or a few top solutions for critical last-hour improvement.

7) Create a new ranking for the tools, so it is known how many times each recipe has been downloaded.
8) Generate a ranking for the people that is programming the recipes, according to how many times their recipes are downloaded. They deserve a lot of the credit for our results, that now they are getting only in part privately, within their groups.

7) and 8) Make the programmers useful for everybody, not just his/her teammates. Also, their skills are recognized, something that I think is no completely done now.

I hope this helps. Best.

Ignacio

auntdeen Lv 1

I can agree with some of your points…

But would like to offer a different perspective on others.

One thing that I can see (that you state) is that you have taken little advantage of the help between teammates. One of the best outcomes of team evolving is a communication between the soloist and those who choose to evolve a solution - not just what scripts to run that may improve, but which areas have responded to what type of handwork. This would likely be an impossible outcome using only global chat.

There are two things about group scripts that I would take issue with. The first is that often, a scriptwriter is posting to group an initial version of a new script, and asks teammates to test it for bugs.

The second is that from what I have seen, the best scripts are a collaboration between someone who has a great idea who does not have the ability to write a script, and a good scriptwriter. Often someone else may chime in with an improvement. This is something that requires less "noise" than global. That kind of collaboration works best in a smaller than global grouping. While it works in a group the size of mine, I suspect that we probably push the outer limits.

I have either given an idea or an improvement that has resulted in a decent recipe a dozen or so times. Without the easy access to someone who could turn those ideas into a useful script, I doubt that I would have "contacted" a scriptwriter to ask them to do something. Since a few of those scripts were among those that you have benefited from, they would not have helped you - or anyone, because they would never have been written.

The system that we have now is imperfect in many ways. As foldit gets more complex, there is no doubt that we need better teaching tools - webinars, videos, etc. We simply don't have these tools at the moment that are good quality and free for use - I have investigated many, and have been trying to work on this for many months. We are lucky to have had so many people contribute to the updating of the wiki, but without good quality video access, imho we have reached a ceiling on what we can "teach" on a large scale.

The team structure at the moment provides an easy means of a one on one help, or a Teamviewer session to demonstrate either a basic concept or a more complex means of handbuilding a protein. While it's irritating that a folder can only get that in a small group, it would be close to impossible at the moment with a "group" the size of global.

One last thought… for many people, it's the social aspects of foldit that keep them folding. There is silliness and bonding and fun and information about many off topic things that go on in the group chat rooms. This is why many people keep folding - through a dry spell, while they are learning, during computer issues. If you cut that off by throwing everyone into the large global group, many folders would simply drift away. Yes, anyone can open an external irc room, but many folders choose to use only the ingame chat - some just don't have the ability or the desire to do an external irc.

I suspect that this may be a lively thread! However, I'm changing the priority to 3 - "1-High" is usually reserved for game-killing bugs.

Hanto Lv 1

Response being drafted, will take some time in order to remain rational during the response. Ignacio, it would have been nice if you had broached this subject in group rather then behaving the way you did, you would have learned much that apparently you don't understand now. I'm sure you were put up to this tho, and I have my suspicions about who has set you up. You will be dismayed when you finally realize the truth of the matter..

auntdeen Lv 1

Please

Whatever is the problem here, this is not a game-killing bug for ALL folders - this is a 3 priority, not a 1.

beta_helix Staff Lv 1

Suggestions are indeed the lowest priority so please do not change it.

I will also please ask that everyone remain civil in this thread. Any posts containing personal attacks will be deleted immediately and this thread will be closed if it strays off topic.

The initial post suggests many different changes to the game, so please focus your replies on those. Thanks!

Ignacio Lv 1

I understand what you mean. But this can be easily solved: people may be encouraged to self-organize in not necessarily closed teams, but eliminating group-private recipes (top problem), eliminating group competition (generally useless to make any change about which is the top solution) and eliminating the possibility of copying solutions for improving a soloist score (also a bad problem right now). I am not against communicating information to other players and it is likely, as you said, that communication is better in groups smaller than the whole community. However, the current group structure, being competitive, generates more problems than benefits.

Also, please remember that several of the best AD scripts were kept group-only until they were "transferred" to Go Science. Only then, and after a big fuss, they were shared. What happened is that competition became much more close. A nice natural experiment that suggest that if all recipes in the groups were today shared, the top scores would go up simply because many more players would have the opportunity of improving their results. And, supposedly, we are here to improve the global scores as much as we can, to find out how proteins fold, not to be better than other team or player.

Hanto Lv 1

For once I am enjoyably in agreement with Aunt Deem's response.
However you mention an illicit affair and ashamedly I am guilty. What I am not guilty of tho is not trying to remove those recipes from the GoScience group as soon as I could, but I have to say that this particular failure is not all my fault. It seems that once a recipe is shared it becomes extremely difficult to remove from group listings UNLESS it is done immediately after the initial share.
I remember not even knowing how to share a recipe and itsKimo took me through the process, and in fact it was at his urging that they were shared to begin with. I know he can't defend himself as I haven't seen him in months, possibly even a year or more. But I do remember Foxy Lady and Stardust more or less stopped playing shortly after the share occurred. and one more thing I remember quite clearly. Within a month of me joining the #GoScience group I happened to notice two corruptions of my two client nicks had also joined the group. Yes at that time I had two client nicks, as I did then, and still do believe in what is so quaintly called ' clones '. Two separate machine IDs however forces one to actually evo results between the two machines, wheres using only one client ID allows one to share unlimited amounts data between machines. That IMO is true cloning… This true cloning as I consider it to be allows people with many machines to easily outperform the poor people with only one machine. So that should considered when one talks about fairness.
Now once B2 and pauldunn joined the group because it was so small, at the time I was almost totally alone in the group, with itsKimo only only rarely showing up. I think he was already interested in foldeRNA and I can't say I blame him. Always nicer to be in a more populated, but not to heavily populated group. I figure he probably liked the recipes too, but he never directly mentioned the same to me. Anyway, it quickly became apparent that Paul was capable of writing extremely advanced recipes, not like the primitive stuff I have brought over from AD. B2 and myself started making suggestions to Paul and he started churning out the advanced recipes. There was much troubleshooting of Paul's new recipes with him doing most of that as he more or less recognized his failures far quicker the myself and B2. So again Aunt Deem is correct. Much can be done in a small environment if enough dedication is offered to that environment, and assuming one has the dedication of an advanced Lau programmer, Paul wasn't all that advanced to begin with, but he showed the skill and dedication to keep trying.
During this phase you joined the group in this early stage of Paul's writing, I had never seen you before, we only knew that Dj-P only extremely rarely showed himself to the group. For the longest we didn't even know that you and Dj were related. And then somehow or another you got OPs, we knew that Dj or the admins had to have given to you, but getting a response from you was like pulling teeth on a live mammoth. You might have belonged to the group earlier, and just never noticed in the group listings or you might have joined the group just to keep the appearance of family within the group. At that time we didn't know who you were. Only that you had OPs and were only extremely rarely responsive to our questions/commentary. And along the way, you rarely shared and that was most of the time only if we virtually begged you to. After maybe a couple of months you disappeared from the group entirely, not one of knew where you had gone, but we did know that we didn't have an OP in the channel anymore, thus many issues cropped up that needed the attention of an OP at minimum and more likely the attention of a channel founder..It was during this time that we starting getting new recruits to the group, Smiling being one of them. She and Mark are the only ones from this period of time that stuck around for any lenght of time, although we still see Hylee sometimes.. I still remember teaching Smiling so much about how to get her computers to run more clients then they would normally endure. And she was an avid student, engaging in anything that allowed her to get more and higher scores, even it meant using the rather primitive recipes from AD, half of which never worked anyway. I practically begged her not to use them, but scores were more important then anything else and by that time she had been made an OP herself as Paul was sometimes away for family business. It really was at her urgings that Dj-P was replaced as channel founder. I just thought you should know that. I was pretty much against, but I am guilty of going along with the replacement.
Now I think I have explained myself enough concerning illicit affairs and the history of the group since well before I noticed your existance in the group.

Now I have a few suggestions of my own, concerning Groups/Teams

1.) Groups/Teams should not be founded by any one person as that leaves to much power the hands of one person who either can be helpful or detrimental to the health of the group. My personal belief is that at absolute minimum Groups/Teams need 3 founders and if I had my way, that requirement could be raised to at least 5 to start a group/Team.

2.) That changes to a group/Team be enforced by a two-thirds vote of the founders. That being in Open, moderated, or closed groups..

I get the feeling that you are a little upset with #GoScience becoming a closed group. I'm pretty sure Paul had good reason for his change. He and all of us old men in the group spent much time creating, testing, and finally sometimes only after a year or so, actually learning how to use some of his most important recipes.I still have some ideas about new variants of both his recipes and some public recipes, but I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt, I have not used ANY illicit recipes in at least a year and a half. Now that we finally have the team moving higher, you decide without talking to anyone in group to make your own decisions about what is good for the group. Like I said, I believe you had some rather ill-advised help in making your decision to avoid talking to the rest of us. So, in fact, I am not really blaming you. I think you simply made a mistake like I did when I first shared those recipes, at the urging of someone I truly respected at the time and ( I thought ) would not steer me in the wrong direction…

Anyway, Nuff said, but I am truly amazed by my almost total agreement with AuntDeem. Sorry about that Auntie :)

Hanto Lv 1

Again I apologize for the double bouncing of my rather expensive Logitech mouse switches. Just goes to show that these brand name products don't mind creating problems and then ignoring a person's pleas for rectification, This mouse is only two months old, and the previous were only two months old when they started the same double bouncing. Like a fool, I couldn't believe that a name brand product would do that to a person.

Ignacio Lv 1

Nothing in your post has anything to do with my suggestions. And I don't discuss ad hominem attacks.

B_2 Lv 1

Priority back to 3 again.

Hanto - As beta_helix asked, please do not continue changing the priority to "High 1"