# 17 Feb, 2018 10:16
|I don't know anyone who pays someone to process their data. Sounds a bit rum to me.|
# 17 Feb, 2018 12:06
When we enter into a discussion conducted in a language that is not ours, sometimes we find it difficult to understand the messages of the other, even with the help of the google-translator. Unfortunately, this is my case. I do not fully understand all the messages and this takes away from me the capacity for response and argumentation.|
Over the past few days I have read many opinions, some of which I reviewed, some not. Some founded, some not.
I do not think it strange that anyone who is accustomed to winning Top Picks and IOTD wants to keep everything as it is. And I also do not think it's strange that anyone who does not win Top Picks and IOTD wants to change the rules. I understand that. It is related to our nature.
As I wrote this, I remembered that one day I was watching a snooker game and the result was 4-0. The winning player said several times that he would win by 5-0 and before finishing the last game, the losing player left the game saying to the other: "play alone, that way you always win." For the winner, the hobby was a great source of pleasure … and for the loser? My guess is yes … but it could be better.
When I launched this topic, I wrote: "As discussed with Salvatore, we both think it's a good idea to discuss IOTD and Top Picks.". Now I see that he never participated and so I will suspend my participation.
Greetings to all and clean skies.
# 17 Feb, 2018 12:40
I also suspend my participation, I have asked Salvatore to remove me as a submitter as I don't think anything is going to change, and I now have no enthusiasm for picking images any more since this thread.|
IOTD is not what I thought it would be when I volunteered.
I leave you with one comment that Paddy made.
"if you're not creating the image what enjoyment and for that matter achievement is there in the process? " This explains why I feel the way I do and why I won't use downloaded data, but each to his own.
If you folks are happy with how things are, I leave you to it and I will go back to just using Astrobin as a hosting site and for looking at and seeking out interesting targets.
# 17 Feb, 2018 13:15
Astrobin is completely ready to accept any kind of images (own data, pro data, downloaded data).|
I have uploaded yesterday an image that I recorded by myself 2 nights ago where I ran 200km and I came back at home at 3.30am, going to work at 6am.
The image is a mean image (short integration and poor seeing) and I've received half likes than my pro data compositions.
And this is completely fair! I don't want the community consensus just because I spent a mega effort for collecting photons!
# 17 Feb, 2018 13:19
Carole PopeFor clarification I said "Creating the image" - I have issues where data comes from so long as disclosed. From that point, leave the judging to the judges etc - the breadth of experience and tastes are all welcomed so long they don't suddenly become dictates. Have fun out there
# 17 Feb, 2018 13:49
# 17 Feb, 2018 13:51
|I thought Lloyd's contribution was extremely well argued and I thank him for that. We are a disparate group who have different opinions about things. And thank goodness for that! Can you imaging how dull it would be if everyone thought the same thing as everyone else? If I am not exposed to alternative viewpoints, I might never change my mind about things. It would be silly of me to expect that everything will be just exactly as I think they should be.|
# 17 Feb, 2018 14:52
Over the last few days, I've read a LOT of very strong opinions regarding IOTD. I thought I'd finally weigh in on a couple of things.|
# 17 Feb, 2018 15:09
Me too. I still think the mockup below fixes the problem with some tweaks. For example, you can still do an image of the week or month, and then spend more time explaining why you selected the image. IOTD seems rushed. I've often seen IOTD stay up for several days. "Remote" should probably change to "Hosted" or something else indicating payment to help produce your image.
I don't believe categories discourages people. Rather, if the categories are solid, it does just the opposite. People will submit more variety. Personally I've helped people move to different categories (e.g., backyard to remote or professional). Often they continue submitting at their prior category just for fun or to demonstrate innovation or creativity.
# 17 Feb, 2018 18:56
KuriousGeorgeI believe the graphic does a good job of defining categories–if indeed classification is the route chosen. I think there's a better way though and offer an idea towards the end. Here are some potential downsides to the proposed classification approach. I'm not trying to be obtuse…just pointing out things that should be recognized and handled in the classification:Diego ColonnelloMe too. I still think the mockup below fixes the problem with some tweaks. For example, you can still do an image of the week or month, and then spend more time explaining why you selected the image. IOTD seems rushed. I've often seen IOTD stay up for several days. "Remote" should probably change to "Hosted" or something else indicating payment to help produce your image.
Why are we here on AB? To win IOTD or to be recognized for doing a good job given our unique circumstances? There is a way to do both. That's what the categorization, when and if it can be ironed out, can do. That's what constructive criticism can do, but we all know that real critique is hard to come by and often devolves into a bad place. But why are we really here? Is it not to get better? Let's say that it is to get better at what we do given what we each have to work with.
I don't believe I helped anyone get better when I was a judge. I was a judge last year. My "standards" and "biases":
What can we do? Incoming! Wild Idea…
How about real feedback from a recognized set of subject matter experts (SMEs)? There are factions among this community. It is the nature of the human condition as someone recently mentioned. If the rules are not working for some then change the rules. If they are working, then status quo. I believe this is how we act in a competitive setting, but it doesn't make us better. There are great ideas being proposed, and they'll need to be worked into a coherent approach. Not easy.
But, will the next version of the judgement system really help given the assumption that we really want to get better? IOTD doesn't make you better. It says that someone among us thinks you've done well. You don't know exactly why, but you must be good, right? Hard to say.
Early on, before my time on AB I think "likes" drove the decision which led to gamesmanship which I think still persists today. Later I believe Salvatore (and maybe some small group of advisors) made the decisions with fair intent, but it led to dissatisfaction. Now the current system is again being questioned. Did any of those approaches make anyone better, or just feel better while others felt worse?
What does it take to get IOTD??? Hmmm, I think "likes" help. Following can lead to followers which can result in more likes. Doing a good job (whatever that really means) helps. Doing something unique seems to help. Getting better data seems to help. Having better equipment seems to help, and so on ad nauseam.
I believe that true learning only happens after making a mistake, having it pointed out to you, recognizing it and avoiding it the next time, or the next. But, an unassailable group of SMEs could weigh in on classifications and even selections within classifications and provide valuable feedback. There are so many ways to say that the creation and operation of such a board of "experts" is impossible to achieve. But how can this be made to happen? If we want to be better then why not be assessed by recognized experts, leaders, achievers, etc.? But if there's a will there could be a way.
On a related note, I don't know of anyone who pays for someone else to process their data. I'm not sure where the enjoyment or development of skills happens when you outsource this. Nor do I know how one proves it occurs. Can you hire Block, Colombari, Gendler, Walker, RBA, J. Davis, Moore, Gabany, Crawford, Goldman, Cannistra, Hallas, et. al.? Are they for sale? Surely not.
We all have our favorites and this is my list – each represents an attribute or has an ability that I admire. I hope to emulate them or even equal them. In my daydreams I invent or innovate like they have. In my fantasies I surpass them. I chose to start here, on AB, to become aware of the art of the possible, to improve, and has largely worked in that regard. I've gone back to the drawing board many times after seeing someone else's work here or not on here, with the same or different data. My sensibilities are rooted in fairness, competition, challenges and growth. I wish I were as good a human being as that sounds…maybe it's more aspirational than rooting ;-) Maybe we can make strides in this direction with respect to AB.
Once again, I'll follow the position set forth by Salvatore as his vision enabled this environment in the first place.
Clear Skies. Lloyd.
# 17 Feb, 2018 19:10
what a read this was! I have actually been following the discussion as it unfolded, but I didn't want to intervene until it looked like the dust was settling.
I believe that this was a very useful and productive discussion, and I thank each and every one of you for participating in the first place (making an effort to make AstroBin a better place) and also for being civil.
I think we can learn a number of things from this thread.
Beck to the four items above.
What I will do, is use all the great information, ideas, and opinions in this thread to create a proper poll with which I will try to reach as much of the community as possible. Then a decision will be made according to the results of this poll.
SORRY FOR THE CAPS BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT NOW: IF ANYBODY READING THIS HAS THE WILL, ENERGY AND TIME TO MAKE A SUMMARY OF ALL THE IDEAS THAT WOULD FIT IN A POLL, COULD YOU PLEASE DO THAT? – I have so much engineering work to do on AstroBin, on top of my day job (which is quite demanding), my children, and my other interests, that I have no trouble admitting that acting as a Community Manager too is just too much to handle.
Finally, I would like to remind everyone that the submitters, reviewers, and judges are volunteers that do this for fun. Everybody on the staff was chosen as a first-come-first-served basis, i.e. all those who wanted, they got in, until the required number was reached. I did not do any picking and choosing. First, because there weren't enough volunteers to be picky about them, and second, because I haven't come up with criteria that would qualify people to be on the IOTD staff.
Thank you all for reading and please do carry on with the discussion. My opinions are by no means final and any more important than those of the others. Sure, I own AstroBin and can (and do) make decision, but I put the interests of the community first, always!
# 17 Feb, 2018 19:35
Deep Sky West (Ll...And that is exactly why the current system is flawed. What difference does the amount of likes make? A great image is still a great image whether it gets 20 likes or 300. Just because someone has 1000 followers and can garner 25% of them to be active and like their image as opposed to the person who has 10 followers and can only garner 30 likes. I wonder how many of the IOTD review board gained new followers after the list of the IOTD staff was posted?
A bit about me before you think I am just blowing smoke. I have 4 AAPODS, 3 magazine publications, numerous awards from other forums, been on TV, invited to give a lecture at RASC, and a TP here on AB.
# 17 Feb, 2018 19:36
KuriousGeorgeI may be a little naive, but I can't imagine some people paying for processing… and more for processing data which are not even theirs (neither from backyard, nor from a personnal/shared remote).
Besides, this kind of method does not only concern IOTD, but all kind of rewards : AAPOD, APOD, etc.; even "social recognition" on social networks.
Personally, I don't believe in a "button" to get IOTD involving an automated capture and automated processing… I really don't believe in "automated processing" : compare the result between an automatic script and manual processing…
Like many other here, I feel sad for the people who come to such practices : there's just so much fun to process your images !
And moreover, once again : is winning IOTD, APOD… the only motivation for doing astrophotography ?
To be honest, when I was awarded with an IOTD, I felt really happy (maybe because it was my first one !) ; but it was and will never be my motivation.
My motivation is to have fun, to make the best images possible considering my personnal constraints (and living in Paris is a really big one ), and above all, to share the sky with friends and my daughters through my images.
Making beautiful images is great ; but making images that please you and you're proud of is greater !
My favourite personnal image until now is this one : https://astrob.in/268084/0/
Not an IOTD, not even a TP !
Clear skies and have fun !
# 17 Feb, 2018 19:42
ScottHi Scott,Deep Sky West (Ll...And that is exactly why the current system is flawed. What difference does the amount of likes make? A great image is still a great image whether it gets 20 likes or 300. Just because someone has 1000 followers and can garner 25% of them to be active and like their image as opposed to the person who has 10 followers and can only garner 30 likes. I wonder how many of the IOTD review board gained new followers after the list of the IOTD staff was posted?
I want to be sure everyone understands the point I'm trying to make: IOTD does not make you better. See the paragraph before the line you quoted. The system, in it's various incarnations, is more like "gamification" and not a true indicator of the attributes possessed by good images.
Nothing you've said leads me to believe you're "blowing smoke" as I take everyone's point of view at face value. Congrats on your awards and such.
# 17 Feb, 2018 20:23
Deep Sky West (Ll...Lloyd,
Yes, I read the previous paragraph. I agree with you, I did not mean for it to come off as not agreeing. Although the previous IOTD system was solely based on likes, the new system is still full of gamification. Hope I did not rub you the wrong way but this is another example of how interacting via these means can lead to sore feelings when that was not the intent.
# 17 Feb, 2018 20:29
My mistake. I thought you weren't hearing me and I also wanted future readers to understand my point of view. You're right…this is a tough medium for detailed understanding Glad we're coming from the same place.
# 17 Feb, 2018 22:36
In the Australian Professional Photography Awards, (widely regarded as the best run/organized Pro Photo awards in the world) , we have 5 judges on a panel, overseen by a panel chairperson, who doesn't vote or score an image - but rather, manages the judges to ensure fair process. This person ensures that a judge is not confronted with their own image, (as judges, we ARE allowed to enter) and ensures the debate process runs smoothly to ensure the fairest outcome for each image. On VERY rare occasions, the chairperson can send an image to another room (there are 2-4 per category) if he/she feels that the image has not been assessed correctly.
I wholeheartedly endorse your enthusiasm for implementing a similar concept for IOTD - to prevent rare but unfortunate stuff-ups
…. and not trying to add your already considerable workload - but adding judges comments to selected IOTD's will in itself create transparency and learning for the greater AB community = win/win all round.
# 17 Feb, 2018 22:44
Salvatore. Keep it like this. Who wants to make astro pictures owns a scope, learns to use it and shares with the sky.|
# 17 Feb, 2018 22:45
AndyYes, this will come rather quickly, independently of whatever minor corrections we will apply to the IOTD process.
# 17 Feb, 2018 23:50
Having been reading this thread as its been on going I thought I'd throw in my view as one of the judges. For me, data pool images (DSW ect.) are well deserving on Top Pics but when it comes to IOTD they don't garner as much attention from me. Now this is not because of the "cheating" argument or whether it is remote but because there are a lot of people out there who have a lot of skill in image processing playing with the same data. When you see half a dozen Rosette Nebula images that all very well processed but near enough to the same, someone with their own UNIQUE data wins out in my opinion. This is not to say that I'd never pick anything from DSW, more unique data is higher up the list though.|
When judging an image my list basically goes as:
Scroll through the judgement queue - Like when judging images for club photographic competitions I look over the current list for something that jumps out, sometimes something different. I'll also look at how far in advance the IOTD images have been selected, as of writing this it is 5 days so unless an image is screaming IOTD to me then I'm not in a rush. I try to look out images that don't fall into the usual Rosette or Orion Nebula
Check Technical Card - This serves as an indication as to the level processing required to get to the final image. One of my requirements is NOT that it is displayed at full resolution but at least at a high resolution and not a postage stamp.
Check image: Looking for processing at both High and Full resolution looking for artefacts; over sharpening, noise reduction, deconvolution, registration and star shape.
If an image passes all of these it'll go on my mental short list. With 6 judges who all have different criteria (although still somewhat similar) as to what screams IOTD to them, there is usually 4-5 days worth of them selected. A recent example would be that of the 10 year crab nebula. As a single image (frame) the M1 image was average but as a 10 year composite it was in my opinion one of the most deserving IOTD's.
I do believe that for the most part the current system works well and is fine. Just to take any bias out of it, I've only had a small number of Top Pics and never had an IOTD, does it bother me? No. And as being a judge I don't see myself getting an IOTD any time soon either. I've never won any other astrophotography awards but that's because I've never put myself into competitions, you gotta be in it to win it!
I have brought it up in the past but my only suggestion of change would be to change the way the Judges system works. At the moment it takes several submitters before an image makes it to the reviewers. Then there are a group of reviewers that "Like" an image before it makes it to the Judges and then it hits 6 people who have no communication. It was brought up a while ago and Sal has just hinted at the fact that it may soon come in but having Judges comments on images is a good idea. I also believe that having more discussion/interaction between the Judges is a good way forward to stop some of the IOTD mishaps that have been mentioned.
At the moment the judges are more or less lone wolfs in picking IOTD, I think it would be better if we worked as a panel.
Having different groups for different days could be a good idea but it does get more difficult when there isn't a steady flow for each section.
# 19 Feb, 2018 09:06
The whole of this thread for 18th seems to have disappeared.|
# 19 Feb, 2018 09:07
Please see https://www.astrobin.com/forum/c/astrobin/annoucements/catastrophic-data-loss/|
# 19 Feb, 2018 09:11
Thanks Salvatore, just read the catastophic data loss post.|
From this Thread's point of view it is a real shame because there were some valuable comments on the 18th where people seemed to be coming to some sort of reasonably agreeable ideas.
Never mind it can't be helped.
# 19 Feb, 2018 09:15
|Indeed, this is probably the biggest loss I'm sure it killed the enthusiasm of anybody wanting to post here. Shame. Sorry again!|
# 19 Feb, 2018 14:34
|Sal, maybe you can lead this conversation to see if we can reach some conclusions.|
|You have no new notifications.|