pseudo-energy calcs are very close

[KWSN_Millennium2001Guy]

I've noticed that a lot of people have the exact same values calculated for their best pseudo-energies. Is this a statistical fluke, or are we all coming up with the exact same structures?

[KWSN_Millennium2001Guy]

Also, I think you should sort the results in the Best pseudo-energy column by two fields, first by Best pseudo-energy and then by User on top 10 since. The first ones to generate a given Best pseudo-energy should be at the top of the list. You should have to generate a better value to move in front of someone already on the list.

Great job, btw Howard, as far as I can tell on this side the changeover to the new backend went very smoothly. Of course the DNS changes are a bit irksome at this point, but I trust that with time the DNS changes will replicate and things should be better.

Ni! :cheers:

[KWSN_Millennium2001Guy]

Now that people are making folds better than 59.989998 pseudo-energy units, the pseudo-energy distribution is more realistic. However, why are there so many users with 59.989998 as their best effort? What makes this number so special?

[Gunslinger]

I've looked at the values being achieved and they are very modal - in our team apart from 59.989998 seven times, I can see 61.439278 three times, 64.337830 four times, 67.236374 four times, etc :eek:

Looks to me as if the short protein simply doesn't allow many distinct pseudo-energy values... :rolleyes:

[Brian the Fist]

I don't know, it just is that way.

[runestar]

KWSN2001,

Ask the CASP5 people. =)

Best,

RS½
PBB