myst103 wrote:

These are the numbers so far

JWPlatt had wanted to keep the data distribution in-cavern-only for now, and we've been honoring that, which is why the numbers have not previously been posted on the forums.

_________________

*SLMW 1.0* No animals were harmed in the production of this message.

See? This is why I doubted more feedback would help. Because you still think Cyan's going to flip a switch whenever they please. And what is Cyan going to do? Prove they aren't? How, exactly? They're obviously recording the pellet data, they've showed us it, so why keep up this ridiculousness? I guess because you can. Which is, I guess, why you also decided to post the numbers that were being kept in-cavern as well.

_________________
-Whilyam

Dropping pellets is supposed to show how many people actually want the lake lit. It is the way the Cyan decided that they would allow voting on the subject. If you don't want the lake lit, then don't drop pellets, or drop negative pellets.
If you do want the lake lit, then you need to drop pellets at least once a week to show your support for it.

_________________
Greypiffle Fogg

Whilyam wrote:

See? This is why I doubted more feedback would help. Because you still think Cyan's going to flip a switch whenever they please. And what is Cyan going to do? Prove they aren't? How, exactly? They're obviously recording the pellet data, they've showed us it, so why keep up this ridiculousness? I guess because you can. Which is, I guess, why you also decided to post the numbers that were being kept in-cavern as well.

Regardless of what Cyan says, or wants for that matter, this is still a task with no clear goal. There isn't any information or feedback on how many pellets it takes, or in which rate to drop them, for the lake to light up. Mind you, I'm not talking about total restoration of the lake cycle either, just, you know, for it to begin at all. So what there is for now is a bunch of numbers and graphs that tell us (or perhaps I should be saying "you" since I'm not participating in this after all) how much we've worked, but not how far we've actually come.

_________________
*retired forumer*

Whilyam wrote:

See? This is why I doubted more feedback would help. Because you still think Cyan's going to flip a switch whenever they please. And what is Cyan going to do? Prove they aren't? How, exactly? They're obviously recording the pellet data, they've showed us it, so why keep up this ridiculousness? I guess because you can. Which is, I guess, why you also decided to post the numbers that were being kept in-cavern as well.

So the numbers are out now, it's not a big deal. What does the average of 340 even mean to you? You can't claim these numbers mean anything without a goal or even progess. There is a group photographing the lake everyday that prove it's not getting any lighter yet.

Thinking that Cyan has their hand on the swith is not ridiculousness. Why keep it up? Because they have to. You think they want another Great Zero on their hands? They have to keep this data even if it's completely meaningless because they can manipulate it at any point to get the results they want. Why? Because only they know when they want the light to start brightening.

We've been doing this for 5 months now, which you can assume is at least half or a third of the way to getting the lake lit but it hasn't even gotten a smidge brighter. How do you reconcile that with your numbers meaning something? I'm not trying to be mean or anything, I support the effort, but you do have to think about this.

I lost a heap of faith in this project having much directly to do with us when they took down the meter by the lake. I think it was around the time they decided to have seasons and they didn't want to be held to update that meter with a concrete display of our progress. Why? Because they wanted full secret control of when this process would start and end. They are going to end it during an episode. I personally don't think the lake is going to get any brighter until the new season begins. When has anything happened outside of a episode (besides sparklies)?

myst103 wrote:

These are the numbers so far, but they're really meaningless with a goal of some sort. I still think that Cyan will just "flip the light switch" when it suits them to do so.

Then why would they keep track of the numbers if they were meaningless anyway? Or do you think Cyan just makes these numbers up every day? Cyan said on multiple occasions that they are keeping track of the pellets (both good and bad) and that we are deciding when the lake will be lit. We just have to trust Cyan on that. They can't prove to us that they are really using our numbers, unless they're giving away their source code.

Carrot wrote:

Regardless of what Cyan says, or wants for that matter, this is still a task with no clear goal. There isn't any information or feedback on how many pellets it takes, or in which rate to drop them, for the lake to light up.

You're right that there is no clear goal. That's because ICly Laxman can't know when the lake will be lit, because he has never done an experiment like this before. That's why Laxman ICly also didn't want to give out numbers, because they were meaningless, as we don't have a clear goal. I know that these are all IC arguments, no OOC ones, but giving the goal OOCly would spoil the project I think.
But there has been feedback about in which rate we have to drop pellets. Remember all the talk about spikes and such?

We've got KI mails with info about the lake project, we've got 2 graphs on the DRC website, and on top of that, we're getting daily updates now.

Initially I'd also thought that there would be a great difference in the lake light at the moment... but I guess Cyan has different plans. But we do get feedback and they are tracking our efforts... on a daily basis!

I have to agree with Whilyam. We've been given more and more info, we even have the daily numbers that Laxman didn't want to give us, but it still doesn't seem to be enough for some...

The November graph, if and when it is published by the DRC, could give us a better idea of how the numbers we are getting are applied to the "percentage." At that point, we can see better what 100% actually means.

(I am disappointed that that it appears we probably know Myst103 and that the account was created today with the intention to anonymously publish the numbers outside the Cavern. Setting up more than one account is against forum policy, and publishing the numbers is contrary to my request which was to not publicly post the numbers until the DRC itself publishes the graph representing those numbers. I have very much appreciated community cooperation with this so far.)

_________________
OpenUru.org: An Uru Project Resource Site : Twitter : Perfect Speed Is Being There.

The disagreement is, I think, predicated on different interpretations of "feedback." Providing total pellet drop numbers on a daily basis is one form of feedback, and if there was any additional information on the ultimate goal (other than "Avoid spikes!"), I think people would be content. The lack of information on the goal or any information on the relation between pellet scores and lake light levels is realistic, however, as the DRC probably is working with little to no data themselves.

So that points to a different form of feedback, namely, changes in the lake light level itself. If we could track pellet scores and measure some change in the light level, we might be able to deduce for ourselves what the ultimate goal is likely to be. That form of feedback would be far more engaging, as we would be the ones who would be figuring out the relation rather than having it spoonfed by the DRC.

Now, if the objection to this second form of feedback is that it is (OOC) too difficult to provide due to technical limitations, then that leaves Cyan in the awkward position of having promoted a major explorer initiative without any good IC explanation for the lack of IC feedback (of the second kind). We are forced to believe (IC) that dropping pellets has zero effect for an indeterminable period of time, and then suddenly the lake will bloom with light. For those of us who were looking for the second type of feedback, this just makes it a lousy initiative. Knowing the total number of pellet points provides some entertainment (although it would be WAY more entertaining if we got more data), but it's not really very good feedback.

JWPlatt wrote:

The November graph, if and when it is published by the DRC, could give us a better idea of how the numbers we are getting are applied to the "percentage." At that point, we can see better what 100% actually means.

I don't think uncertainty over "100%" is really driving people's dissatisfaction with this initiative. Putting the vertical axis in percentage terms is simply a way of simplifying the three data series (to no good purpose, from what I can tell). As such, I don't place any importance on the publication of the November graph.

_________________
I speak only for myself, unless specifically noted otherwise.
Ich spreche nur für mich selbst - außer es folgt ausdrücklich ein entsprechender Hinweis.

Zardoz wrote:

We are forced to believe (IC) that dropping pellets has zero effect for an indeterminable period of time, and then suddenly the lake will bloom with light.

It wouldn't take too much forcing in my case, because I can see a pretty good biological justification being built around this idea. But we started getting bafflegab about spikes instead.

Edit: Thanks, Ireen! Problem solved.

_________________

*SLMW 1.0* No animals were harmed in the production of this message.

BrettM wrote:

Zardoz wrote:

We are forced to believe (IC) that dropping pellets has zero effect for an indeterminable period of time, and then suddenly the lake will bloom with light.

It wouldn't take too much forcing in my case, because I can see a pretty good biological justification being built around this idea. But we started getting bafflegab about spikes instead.

You are no doubt referring to the phenomenon known as quorum sensing (Fuqua, W. C., S. C. Winans, and E. P. Greenberg. 1994. Quorum sensing in bacteria: the LuxR-LuxI family of cell density-responsive transcriptional regulators. J. Bacteriol. 176:269–275). This has been identified as a possible source of the so-called "milky sea" (Nealson, K.H. and J.W. Hastings. 2006. Quorum sensing on a global scale: massive numbers of bioluminescent bacteria make milky seas. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72:2295-2297). The problem, of course, is how to reconcile the "quorum threshold" with the supposed 30 hour periodicity in the light level. Does the quorum change over time? Sure like to see the Fuzzy Physics Institute address this issue . . .

Zardoz wrote:

JWPlatt wrote:

The November graph, if and when it is published by the DRC, could give us a better idea of how the numbers we are getting are applied to the "percentage." At that point, we can see better what 100% actually means.

I don't think uncertainty over "100%" is really driving people's dissatisfaction with this initiative. Putting the vertical axis in percentage terms is simply a way of simplifying the three data series (to no good purpose, from what I can tell). As such, I don't place any importance on the publication of the November graph.

What if we can get just a single datapoint for each of the prior months in which graphs are already available? We will then have the ability to derive the numbers for every day of previous months, which is something you have asked for. And we'll know just how arbitrary the 100% mark really is month to month. This should be very little trouble for Dr. Watson of the DRC to provide. Certainly less trouble than digging up the numbers for every day. Some analysis here could either give you more ammunition for the Zardoz Theory of Capriciousness (ZTOC) or give BrettM something more to work with in his biological studies. Or both.

_________________
OpenUru.org: An Uru Project Resource Site : Twitter : Perfect Speed Is Being There.

JWPlatt wrote:

What if we can get just a single datapoint for each of the prior months in which graphs are already available? We will then have the ability to derive the numbers for every day of previous months, which is something you have asked for. And we'll know just how arbitrary the 100% mark really is month to month.

JWPlatt, I really don't understand what those numbers would tell you. Like I said, with no visible sign of any progression to judge by or any type of figure or formula representing the end of this process, what would the previous months numbers mean to you? Sure, you could plot a graph showing how things have changed from month to month, but isn't it all meaningless without the x-axis? And secondly, do you believe that Cyan would let something as potentially important as the lake lighting happen during the break? (I'm really asking these questions, not being rhetorical)

Zardoz wrote:

You are no doubt referring to the phenomenon known as quorum sensing

Actually, I wasn't. But that would probably dovetail well with the ideas I was considering, leading to a better theory. Thanks for the idea!

But, as for FPI taking this on, we're in no hurry to stick our necks out again after having the rug pulled out from under some of our work by the surprise revelation of algae that explode from their own metabolic processes. (A bizarre phenomenon which adds to the difficulty of constructing a coherent picture of the biological/ecological situation. Not to mention the additional danger to our lab people, and the damage that shelling out hazard pay does to our bottom line.) Adding the surprise revelation of the spiking phenomenon on top of that makes the whole affair too unpredictable for us. We will simply wait in breathless anticipation for the next twist in the story. Perhaps the algae will sprout wings and grow into Bahro.

_________________

*SLMW 1.0* No animals were harmed in the production of this message.

raistlin75 wrote:

JWPlatt wrote:

What if we can get just a single datapoint for each of the prior months in which graphs are already available? We will then have the ability to derive the numbers for every day of previous months, which is something you have asked for. And we'll know just how arbitrary the 100% mark really is month to month.

JWPlatt, I really don't understand what those numbers would tell you. Like I said, with no visible sign of any progression to judge by or any type of figure or formula representing the end of this process, what would the previous months numbers mean to you? Sure, you could plot a graph showing how things have changed from month to month, but isn't it all meaningless without the x-axis? And secondly, do you believe that Cyan would let something as potentially important as the lake lighting happen during the break? (I'm really asking these questions, not being rhetorical)

One step at a time. We do what we can with what we have. We are not going to be given all the answers up front. Ask for everything up front and risk getting nothing. I'm trying to provide the steps where leaps are impossible. We now have more than we had and my efforts, at least, to advance this story won't diminish.

Many seem to think the lake light will just snap on like a light switch, like a GZ switch. The failure of the GZ story induces this fear, and it is a reasonable concern. But I expect the lighting to be gradual, like a dimmer switch, in more than just a few stages as the light makes more content visible, requiring more production of that content. So, no, I don't believe Lighting the Cavern will happen only during episodes or all at once. Cyan would be wise, if they have learned anything, to allow a gradual rise based on real explorer influence and participation. I agree at this point that to do otherwise risks tremendous cynicism about the game of the sort Zardoz has already eloquently expressed and the kind of despair which could affect subscriptions. Cyan is listening, so I think the lake will be handled better, but probably will require more time to prepare. Demands to light the lake right now might very well induce another GZ during an episode. Patience, participation, and the willingness to immerse yourself to enjoy the process might give us what we really would like to happen.

_________________
OpenUru.org: An Uru Project Resource Site : Twitter : Perfect Speed Is Being There.