Kudos to @michal_dubrawski for unearthing previous snapshots of our resolution page in the Internet Archive (on top of his calculations, of course) below. From them, it becomes apparent that:
Only 2 planets were added in the catalog in 2023, both of them in the very first update of Jan 5. No other planet was added during the rest of the year (2023)
7 planets have been added in 2024 (Jan-Mar), only 1 of which counts for resolution (i.e. added after Feb 1).
Recall that, according to the head of the HWC, Prof. Abel Méndez:
I guess 5 to 10 new additions this year
With 7 planets added in 2024 so far, we seem to be already in this expected range... 4 more planets (needed to resolve this as Yes) would drive the total to 11, i.e. slightly above his expectation. [EDIT: see Michał's very reasonable counter-argument below]
Apparently, the number of 51 in Sep 2023 reported by @PeterStampbelow (and any calculation based upon it) is not correct.
Thanks @ctsats, I keep going back to the reply you got from the professor Abel, since it is easy for the exact meaning to blur in our mind. We (or at least I) do not remember exact words and I believe that the exact words are important for reinterpretation in the face of new data.
About that:
Recall that, according to the head of the HWC, Prof. Abel Méndez:
"I guess 5 to 10 new additions this year"
With 7 planets added in 2024 so far, we seem to be already in this expected range... 4 more planets (needed to resolve this as Yes) would drive the total to 11, i.e. slightly above his expectation.
I was considering a similar interpretation, and it might be a right one, but one thing which slightly doesn't fit it is that you got your reply from the professor around April 12, right? So as you said, it was after 7 planets were already added to the catalog this year. But he used the range of "5 to 10 new additions this year". My point is that 5 was already not possible if he meant for the whole year including the ones previously added (already 7). So, maybe rather than referring to the whole year, he meant new additions in the remaining period till the end of this year? The expressions "new" added to "additions" seem unnecessary and redundant, since additions made this year are by definition new (it is possible - people use language like that all the time, even highly educated people). Unless maybe by "new additions" he meant "additional"? It is of course possible that he meant the whole year and just did not have an exact count in his mind. After all, these 7 additions comes from three different updates made this year, and while he was kind to reply, the delay in reply to @ctsats email shows that he is busy - so unlike us, he might not have time to check how many additions were already made this year.
Kudos to @michal_dubrawski for unearthing previous snapshots of our resolution page in the Internet Archive (on top of his calculations, of course) below. From them, it becomes apparent that:
Recall that, according to the head of the HWC, Prof. Abel Méndez:
With 7 planets added in 2024 so far, we seem to be already in this expected range... 4 more planets (needed to resolve this as Yes) would drive the total to 11, i.e. slightly above his expectation. [EDIT: see Michał's very reasonable counter-argument below]
Apparently, the number of 51 in Sep 2023 reported by @PeterStamp below (and any calculation based upon it) is not correct.
Thanks @ctsats, I keep going back to the reply you got from the professor Abel, since it is easy for the exact meaning to blur in our mind. We (or at least I) do not remember exact words and I believe that the exact words are important for reinterpretation in the face of new data.
About that:
I was considering a similar interpretation, and it might be a right one, but one thing which slightly doesn't fit it is that you got your reply from the professor around April 12, right? So as you said, it was after 7 planets were already added to the catalog this year. But he used the range of "5 to 10 new additions this year". My point is that 5 was already not possible if he meant for the whole year including the ones previously added (already 7). So, maybe rather than referring to the whole year, he meant new additions in the remaining period till the end of this year? The expressions "new" added to "additions" seem unnecessary and redundant, since additions made this year are by definition new (it is possible - people use language like that all the time, even highly educated people). Unless maybe by "new additions" he meant "additional"?
It is of course possible that he meant the whole year and just did not have an exact count in his mind. After all, these 7 additions comes from three different updates made this year, and while he was kind to reply, the delay in reply to @ctsats email shows that he is busy - so unlike us, he might not have time to check how many additions were already made this year.
What do you think Team? Should we use the wisdom of an educated crowd here? @cmeinel @ctsats @PeterStamp @Perspectus @404_NOT_FOUND @guyrecord @sai_39 @ansantillan @Jim @NoUsernameSelected @JonathanMann @DimaKlenchin
If you are interested, I created this short (two questions) survey to collect your estimates: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfwNyfWvp3eQysU9KyidC0cCi9rzx6gEWFzhJdCHC4zKctyKg/viewform?usp=sf_link
@PeterStamp I don't know if this will be of help but the number 51 exoplanets in the catalog may come from the update made on 2017-04-19 - see the archived version of the website they used back then: https://web.archive.org/web/20170427021855/http://phl.upr.edu:80/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog (I also used Wikipedia editing history to find old urls for the Archive.org Wayback Machine and Archive.ph) here is my full worksheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RHV22QmSWF6m9YpVCkXLspZ4I688j36feD6Ra3OFMsw/edit?usp=sharing
Indeed, this is a very reasonable counter-argument to my reading; added an edit - thanks!
Thank you, Christos! I like discussions with you, you always search for better and more in-depth understanding. Would you share your probability with me regarding your current interpretation? https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfwNyfWvp3eQysU9KyidC0cCi9rzx6gEWFzhJdCHC4zKctyKg/viewform?usp=sf_link I added my probability to the survey, you can see the results here (so far I was the only one to answer, but I hope a few teammates will add their probability as well): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BEWAjqWCMKAonG6mH7TkQUKC66c6KVcXUy6zhN19-00/edit?usp=sharing