It isn't important, but I'm curious about the names I see of the WUs I'm processing. I'm guessing this has been discussed before, since I'm new. So feel free to point me in the right direction.

The SAVE ALL OUT IGNORE THE REST is baffling, and is in multiple WUs of different types.
There is also the 8CHARACTER UNIQUE NAME one that makes me think that a WU generating program didn't quite work.
or the yournamehere one that also makes me think that things weren't set up properly.

There is also the 8CHARACTER UNIQUE NAME one that makes me think that a WU generating program didn't quite work.
or the yournamehere one that also makes me think that things weren't set up properly.

I noticed these strange names.
But wus finished correctly, with decoys and credits.
So i don't think these are errors...

---

I noticed these strange names.
But wus finished correctly, with decoys and credits.
So i don't think these are errors...

Errors as in when the WU was developed, someone didn't fill out all the fields and the default values were used to name it.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I can hear a professor of programming saying "8CHARACTER UNIQUE NAME" and the student thinking, "I am totally going to name something that." Maybe at my first job I will do it or name my first cat. This is the way.

---

So i don't think these are errors...

Errors as in when the WU was developed, someone didn't fill out all the fields and the default values were used to name it.

Maybe.
The important thing is science

---

When you have a million WUs out being worked on at any given time, you have to get creative just to keep them unique.

The names basically refer to the protein or fragment being studied, the person or date that is doing the study, and the method of study being used. Some people get hung up on the "...ignore the rest", and think that somehow means results are being thrown away. I believe it would be more accurate to think that results that are believed to be unhelpful are bypassed on your machine so as to focus the time on better prospects. If your calculations on a model have a number of ways to go from here, and 3 look promising and 10 look unlikely, it is going to focus on the 3. But every so often it is good to pursue the other 10 and validate that there is no fruit down those paths, and thus confirm that your decisions on what to ignore are well-informed.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

I'm happily crunching WUs no matter their names. I just found the names interesting and I was curious. I didn't think the WUs had problems, just thought it pointed to an interface issue for the WU creators that needed more explaining (documentation)

Kudos to the Rosetta team that has managed to upgrade the software, as well as upgrade so much more to be able to handle the flood of new people.

Unixchick
now to get a new cat so I can use the name 8character unique name.

I just started aborting the your name here one. It does not inspire confidence for me to commit computational resources to a task when they cannot be bothered to name the task.

I was reading today about a schoolkid who changed their name to "Re-connecting..." and turned off their camera so they didn't have to get involved in any schoolwork.
Somehow this seems relevant to this thread

---

When you have a million WUs out being worked on at any given time, you have to get creative just to keep them unique.

When you have a million WUs out being worked on at any given time, how much thought goes into the science behind those work units?

With meaningless WU names it must be hard to review the results even _if_ the formulation of the work units was far more thoughtful or methodical than the names.

What is the review process before WUs are sent out on the servers?

They could have named them after beer brands, but even then they would have ran out of names. WAIT... we're OUT OF BEER? AHHH we're out of beer.
Remember folks, without beer, none of this would be possible.