In that case why do you have to wait for 3 results before the validation process? Why not do it on one as Rosetta does then we do not sometimes have to wait days before we get a result posted. I have been waiting well over 48 hours for one to be posted.....

Actually, we are waiting for 4 identical results - the most rigorous method. Personally I think that 3 would do the trick, but we will finish the last little bit to the same standard that has been adhered to all through the project.

Rosetta@home is a research project that is using the returned data 2 different ways. First, they are mapping out the whole range with many trials, using human intuition on the resulting mass plots to guide their algorithmic development. An occasional erroneous outlier should not make any difference. Labs deal with spurious data points all the time. Secondly, they select the result with the lowest energy (or a small set of such results) and rerun the computations on their own computers to verify it.

This is the smart, efficient way to do it, for their purposes. But if they start running jobs submitted to them on their Robetta server from other universities, I strongly suspect they will require multiple-result validation for those jobs.

Anyway, the people who decide how much validation is required are the project scientists, not us. But I would expect that Viktors can give them whole pages on the error rates we experience. With luck, Scripps will be satisfied with a smaller quorum than 4.

We have not programmed the server with the BOINC results page yet. The XML Team stats will be another job. Right now, I have no idea when it will be done. I do know that it is a high priority. We are computing the scores for individuals, but we are still moving FAAH over to BOINC and getting another project ready and setting up the website to run in French.

It's a rush-rush world,
mycrofth