Reference cube

General
#1

Something very handy…

When the animated cube has JUST finished zooming in, do a PrtSc (Print Screen) and then save the screen shot as a reference if you see strange branches taking shape. You can then see if it is possible that the branch could possibly go there! 
#2

You can also click “Return to overview”, check the neighborhood and go back to your cube by clicking “Start playing” without losing your current progress on that cube :slight_smile:


I think, that is a bit easier. But you are right, some months ago that didn’t work and you had to use screenshots…
#3

I’m wondering if this feature should be disabled. As far as I understand, what you see in the overview (more precisely: the inner part of the cube you’re working on) is what all other players have constructed so far in that cube (or what the algorithm thinks is most likely to be the “correct” reconstruction, based on all player’s contribution). But if during play, each single player “checks” his or her solution to what is most likely to be the correct solution, then their contribution will become biased. Theoretically speaking, if the first players on a cube make the same “error” (e.g. they invent a non-fitting branch) , this error may become confirmed by later players who think they missed that branch and “correct” their solution before submitting. 

So my point is that players should stay “naive” to improve the confidence levels of the reconstruction.
#4

Yeah, we’ve been thinking along the same lines.  For now, just try not to cheat. :slight_smile:

#5

I still strongly disagree with that.

I hope nobody is assimilating the cubes overview-look without questioning - as you said it’s just the average: Extremely bad work is ignored and the same is true for outstanding filigree.
But even though I consider myself to be a… well… quite accurate player, there are cubes where I get a tunnel vision or something similar and therefore would perform even below “average”. Double checking this with the overview before submitting helps to identify regions where I maybe should use a different plane orientation, use the new explore mode and so on…
Therefore I would rather encourage players to use that feature - and of course make sure that everyone understand that the overview only shows the temporarily consensus, not the correct answer…

This is a much more severe issue in my opinion: Doing a good job (regarding real accuracy) might on some cubes result in low point rewards. And many new players I see in chat getting fewer points assume that their current way of tracing is wrong and try to change it to get more points. To say it a bit more blunt: They train themselves a more average way of coloring cubes…
#6

@nkem I see your point. 

Let me rephrase my question: Since there is no way of defining the “correct” reconstruction, we assume that “the most average” reconstruction is the “most accurate” reconstruction. But these do not need to be the same. Providing feedback during play improves the averageness of the final reconstruction, but does it also improves the accuracy of it? I don’t know.
#7

I’d like to separate the 2 relevant issues.  The first is helping players learn how to do cubes better in the future.  The second is trying to get a good result for the science on the cube they are working on right now.  While being able to see the current consensus is great for learning, it’s terrible for science for the reasons @wvdamme mentioned.  I don’t think it’s a trade off that we can afford to make.  For the science, we really need everyone to make their best effort without outside influence.


That having been said, we can and should do a lot more toward the first point of educating people how to do better on future cubes.  I think this will have to take the form of more feedback after you finish a cube not while you are doing it.