I agree that it’s too easy to get into the lab with no training to prepare for the difference between the puzzles and the way things actually synthesize.
Maybe entry to the lab could be in stages. Stage 1: Entry to be able to study how it works and the way synthesis results look, Stage 2: The option to submit designs, Stage 3: The option to vote
Progression to the next stage could require more difficult puzzles, more points, etc.
More importantly, I think the voting should be more than just a simple yes/no vote. When looking at a new design, a person should have to color in each nucleotide either blue or yellow to show how they predict it will fold in actual synthesis. They would be creating what they think the synthesis results will look like.
This would force people to think about how each design will actually perform.
The blue/yellow mapping of the design then becomes not just a vote but an actual prediction of a score. All the predicted scores then average to a consensus on how each design will actually perform when synthesized. Then the designs with the highest average predicted scores get chosen.
The reason a player should have to fill in a design with blue/yellow rather than just predict a number score is to force people to actually think about why and where a design will succeed or fail.
In addition, as well as these blue/yellow predictions being used to rate design candidates, they can also be used to rate us all as to how good we are at making predictions and therefore how well we understand the process.
Everyone making these blue/yellow predictions will then have an average accuracy rating and our future predictions can be weighted according to how accurate we have been in the past.
This type of system would protect the voting from popularity votes and educate everyone at the same time. There would be an incentive to become more accurate at predictions and to understand why RNA folds the way it does in the real world.
This could be implemented from the current voting screen by allowing a person to select any design as we do now and while looking at it, just color in the dots either blue or yellow. Then submit that blue/yellow colored design as their “vote”.
A couple of things would help to keep things fair.
- When scoring a blue/yellow prediction, the number of accurate nucleotides should be counted as well as how close the predicted errors are to the actual errors. This prevents people from just marking 3 random error points and beating the odds.
For example, if 85% of my nucleotide point predictions were accurate then that number gets reduced by the distance between my predicted error points and the actual error points. That number then becomes my accuracy rating.
- Designs that are not chosen for synthesis should not count towards the accuracy rating of anyone making a blue/yellow prediction for those designs. Only designs that are chosen for synthesis should count. This prevents people from just choosing the worst designs and marking them as all failure points, and thus padding their accuracy rating. It also gives people an incentive to make predictions about the most promising designs.
Even if this idea isn’t used for voting, it would still be a nice exercise to do. Sort of a “what’s wrong with this picture” type of puzzle.