Lab Points Distribution

A few days ago, Jeehyng, Mat, a few other players and I were discussing the future of lab points in EteRNA. This issue is sensitive, because of the future increased number of labs, players being unable to reach the higher ranks, and new player participation being stifled by the lack of points for motivation. I of course, didn’t copy the chat, and Jee has made a google doc with the different ideas, which I also cannot seem to find, so here is a brief summary :wink:

No Points - Essentially, no more points in the labs.

Participation Points - Every player receives a set number of points for submitting and voting

Now, instead of either system, I propose a hybrid, with a point cap, that is set high enough that players will have needed to play for over several months in order to reach it. This system would fix several issues, and player input would be much appreciated as to how it could be changed. So then, here is the plan.

  1. Point Cap - The exact numbers have not been decided on yet, as I don’t know what the potential gain per month could be from the upcoming labs. The exact time needed to reach this cap would have to be somewhere around 6 months though, if full points are gained each month. The reason why is that by that time, I would expect many players to have gained more of an intrinsic motivation for the lab, and the need for the extrinsic factor can be dropped. For those who still want the extrinsic factor, the ranking system will not be in the favor of those who were around in the beginning, so newer players can now reach even the number one rank if they wanted.

  2. Points earned from lab period - This is still something that needs to be worked on. Would players earn points based on how well one designs scores, or on them all, as even with the player projects, there are many, many, many labs. If we awarded points based on them all, the cap on points will be much higher.

In addition, there will be the participation points, and the question for these, is, will the points be one set amount, or will the number of labs participated in affect the amount gained?

  1. Lab achievements - There will be achievements awarded in the lab, based on synth scores, how many designs you have submitted so far, etc. There will also be an award of points for these achievements, however, these points will be awarded separately from the points in the lab, so they will not be affected by the cap. This will allow players to gain points after the cap, so it doesn’t appear like they are receiving nothing for their efforts.

  2. New Player Labs - The final part of this plan would be the addition of new player labs. One thing about the current system is that not enough new players are participating. So, my answer to this is to create a new tutorial that explains the lab. Then, new players will be automatically directed to a “beginner lab.” These labs will only be available to players who have not participated in a certain number of lab periods, let’s say two for our purposes here. These labs will have several features, to help guide players, and will also include a scoring system, which will be implemented after the design is submitted. This scoring system could use the ensemble algorithm for scoring, and this will give new players a brief introduction to the ensemble algorithm, and the likelihood of success. Then, they will be told that their design is being synthesized, and in whatever time it takes for the results, they will be able to see how well their design does compared to what the algorithm predicts.

So there it is, please comment below on the strengths and weaknesses of this system, and how we could change it if needed.

Here’s Jee’s Google doc: Points Distribution Ideas

My reasons for dropping out from labs and puzzles were:
too much dithering about issues like this, and too few incentives to participate.
I come by now and then, and I hope that you end up with a good balance for those who are eager to participate.
Being an academic myself, within a field, light years, or scale levels far from RNA studies, I find it more rewarding spending my time within my own field - rather than read up (on peer review papers) in a field where I don’t get any peer aknowledgement. I’d rather peer review and publish within my own field, than read up, like many of the most eager players do, within a research field I do not work within.
So the baseline is, create more incentive for participation :smiley:

Ooh, and since the chat do not work on this computer (ref: getsat postings), I have no idea whatsoever about what goes on in chat (ref: Brourds reference to what he had discussed with others)

Hi boganis, what kind of incentives can you think of?

Regrettably I’m no expert within crowdsourcing either :wink:

Yeah, same thing here, I guess that is partially a mixture of psychology with marketing, a bit of sociology folded in, with a dash of computer science, none of which I am an expert in :wink:


In the chat right now, we are talking about having lab points flow, where points are earned for a certain quarter, and reset at the next quarterow other players to reach the number one spot, if they wanted.

Keep on having those nice discussions :slight_smile: I hope the incentives grow strong enough… Feel free to include me in discussions, but I will have to perform that task within this forum, due to my labour constraints, and my shoddy private PC.

Here is a link to the chat log between, Eli, mat747, starryjess and I from today regarding this post, for anyone who wants to view it.…

Thank you :slight_smile: