Cookie consent

AstroBin saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to deliver better content and for statistical purposes. You can disable the usage of cookies by changing the settings of your browser. By browsing AstroBin without changing the browser settings, you grant us permission to store that information on your device.

I agree

IOTD and Top Picks Manifesto

gnomus
17 Feb, 2018 10:16
I don't know anyone who pays someone to process their data.  Sounds a bit rum to me.
RRBBarbosa
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.
carastro
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.

Carole
Edited 17 Feb, 2018 13:02
rob77
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!

Cheers
Edited 17 Feb, 2018 13:21
patrickgilliland
17 Feb, 2018 13:19
Carole Pope
if you're not creating the image
For 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 smile
cosmophoton
17 Feb, 2018 13:49
.
Edited 17 Feb, 2018 13:56
gnomus
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.
Edited 17 Feb, 2018 14:24
Damien.Cannane
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.

  • First of all, thanks for the 🍿!
  • Personally, I really like Carole's suggestion of a daily theme. I think it would keep things fresh and interesting!
  • I think it's ironic that so many in this group of people who volunteered to help with IOTD are advocating for abolishing it. Why did you volunteer for it if you don't like it?
  • Can we please get a like button in the forum??
That's all I got. I'm really enjoying helping out as a reviewer, despite not having an Astrobin index of 100, never having won IOTD (fairly), and not presenting ANY of my DSO images at the full resolution of my optical train (who wants to see an entry level Canon DSLR at 5,000 pixels?

Clear skies!
Damien
KuriousGeorge
17 Feb, 2018 15:09
Diego Colonnello
Somehow the post above makes me sad…

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.

https://www.astrobin.com/full/333444/0/?nc=user
Edited 17 Feb, 2018 15:14
sixburg
17 Feb, 2018 18:56
KuriousGeorge
Diego Colonnello
Somehow the post above makes me sad…
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.

https://www.astrobin.com/full/333444/0/?nc=user
I 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:

  1. Bortle scale:  as reported by, measured by and verified by whom?  We have maps of this.  Shall we provide the map with a pin on the location of the image acquisition location?
  2. Backyard:  is this literal meaning actually in one's backyard?  Or, does it also include a star party with Bortle 1-5 or 6-9?  Or a mountain top somewhere?  I assume the key driver of this classification is Bortle Scale, not really location.
  3. Hosted:  shall Bortle scale, seeing conditions, etc., be subcategories to the hosted category?  Not all remote sites are created equal.  "Remote" or "Hosted" does not always equate to "better" (this is true of data processed from remote and hosted sites too).
  4. Professional:  I agree with this general categorization, but it opens the door to other questions like what is "professional"?  Is there a difference between professional, terrestrial and space-based?  Is the Liverpool Telescope professional?  Subaru?  The 32" at University of Arizona?  Hubble?   Can a professional scope be owned by an amateur?  If so, which ones?  Does it matter where they are located?
  5. Terrestrial:  I would love to be good at this as I've seen some crazy good work, but lack the skill.  Does this include composites?  Surrealism?  Who judges "real" vs. "fantastical".
These items are not specifically  mentioned in the proposed classification, but it could be argued that these matter too:
  1. Instrumentation:  What about an Achro vs. an APO with all else being equal in terms of Bortle or remote or hosted…same category or not?
  2. Self-made vs. purchased?"  I've seen some outstanding images from self-made systems.  The skill demonstrated from start to finish is enviable.  What if it's self-made, in a Bortle 1 backyard, and technically hosted because there are other hosted scoped too?  What is the ruling categorization?
  3. Attended or unattended?
  4. Automated or not automated?
I only make the above points to point out that categorization is hard to do equitably.  It is a slippery slope.

***
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":

  1. What do their past images look like?
  2. Does it look like they're improving?
  3. How many times did they get IOTD?  Any recently?
  4. Would this be their first (always loved these and would often email the person after the fact to congratulate them and in a few cases say why I chose their image…I didn't do enough of this…not even close.
  5. Is the noise handled well?
  6. Good star color?
  7. Did they get the most out of the data?
  8. Is "this or that" feature there or did they process it away?
  9. What's it look like at full res?
  10. Is it a great example with their equipment?
  11. Is it a surprise given their location?
  12. Did they squeeze a killer image from a little bit of data?
  13. Is it a rare target or a common target done exceptionally well?
  14. Did we have any recent selections of the same target?
  15. Was it terrestrial or space-based (I tended away from the latter…no disrespect intended to those who are good at this…it's extremely difficult to do).
  16. And, if the data came from from DSW I never considered it because of my belief that it would be self-serving given my role in DSW.  Even though I might believe it was deserving I would not select it.
See my biases aka "standards"?  These were all self-imposed, but I'm no expert.  I'm a learner just likely everyone else here.  My standards may be right or wrong or even applied incorrectly, but this was my filter.  We were not given any standard as volunteers.  The diversity of "standards" is likely subject to the law of large numbers and outliers kicked out, but I've no way to be certain of that.  In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.  By my standards the back to back M95s from DSW could have still happened…I just know it wouldn't have been because of my selections.

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.
Edited 17 Feb, 2018 18:57
siovene
17 Feb, 2018 19:10
Dear all,
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.

  1. The IOTD process can of course never be perfect, and you cannot make everyone happy at all times. This is all a subjective matter, at heart, and we all accept that not every IOTD can be the best image ever crafted.
  2. Alternative options on how to approach the problem are very polarizing. Categorizing sounds good at first, but as somebody said, it quickly becomes very hard. Lots of images could belong to multiple categories, for instance. And where is the line on when to stop making categories that are more and more specialized?
  3. The Top Picks were a success and most people here like that they exist. I think I will make them a bit more visible in the front page.
  4. Some people want to remove the IOTD all together. It's not going to happen unless that would be the opinion of the majority of the users.
  5. Some people think that the IOTD and TP should be rate-limited (i.e. 1 per month per user). Personally I disagree, for two reasons. First, why should a great image not be IOTD only because the author already had one this month? And second: rate-limiting is not a solution, it's a workaround. I like to fix problems at the source, instead of cutting a head off to cure a toothache.
  6. Most people seem to agree that the current process yields pretty good results, except in a few occasion. So let's try to come up with an iterative improvement that will iron out the imperfections.
So, what are the things that can be improved in the current process? Let's think back of those times where an IOTD has been unsatisfactory:

  • On occasion, there were IOTDs of the same subject two days in a row
  • On occasion, an IOTD was obviously sub-par
  • On occasion, an IOTD was of a subject most people didn't agree it belonged
  • Sometimes (maybe too often), an IOTD didn't have enough data (equipment, acquisition details)
I believe that if we fix these four issues, then most of the complaints will be gone. The big elephant in the room, of course, remain the professional and remote hosting images. I will discuss this last.

Beck to the four items above.

  • Number one can be fixed by having a Super Judge, somebody who figuratively sits above the other judges, and has the power to reorder the list of upcoming IOTD, to avoid undesirable consecutive images.
  • Number two, same solution. A Super Judge who can undo and IOTD upon examination. Maybe it was too low res. Maybe the stars were oval.
  • Number three, same solution, but first we need to agree on what subjects are undesirable. Brace yourselves, this is hard.
  • Number four, I can actually prevent images with no data to go in the IOTD process queue in the first place, easy-peasy.
Now let's talk about backyard, remote, and professional data. I am almost tempted to break the IOTD in those three categories. Personally (and this is my personal opinion, something that I try to separate from my persona of AstroBin owner) I think that processing professional data, or data acquired remotely, or data that was purchased somehow, is no different, semantically, than processing data acquired by spending the whole night outside. This is a slippery slope of purism, and I find myself in agreement with the point of view expressed by Steve Milne. Again, just my personal opinion.

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!
Hondo
17 Feb, 2018 19:35
Deep Sky West (Ll...
What does it take to get IOTD??? Hmmm, I think "likes" help. Following can lead to followers which can result in more likes
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.

Scott
Jean-Baptiste_Paris
17 Feb, 2018 19:36
KuriousGeorge
We know people pay for data. I know some people also pay to process.My point is IOTD encourages both. If you have little or no skills, you can "win".Soon you'll be able to pay to press a button to get IOTD (i.e., high-quality automated capture and processing).
I 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 ! smile
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 smile), 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 ! smile

Clear skies and have fun !

jb
sixburg
17 Feb, 2018 19:42
Scott
Deep Sky West (Ll...
What does it take to get IOTD??? Hmmm, I think "likes" help. Following can lead to followers which can result in more likes
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.

Scott
Hi Scott,
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.

-Lloyd
Hondo
17 Feb, 2018 20:23
Deep Sky West (Ll...
Hi Scott,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.
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.

Scott
Edited 17 Feb, 2018 20:24
sixburg
17 Feb, 2018 20:29
Hi Scott,
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.

Clear Skies,
-Lloyd
Andys_Astropix
17 Feb, 2018 22:36
Andy
On this topic, perhaps a panel chair would be a good addition to have a final look at selected IOTD’s prior to going to air? Then duplicate images could be flagged & flawed images held until the author has a chance to review their image.

Salvatore Iovene
Number one can be fixed by having a Super Judge, somebody who figuratively sits above the other judges, and has the power to reorder the list of upcoming IOTD, to avoid undesirable consecutive images.
Number two, same solution. A Super Judge who can undo and IOTD upon examination. Maybe it was too low res. Maybe the stars were oval.
Number three, same solution, but first we need to agree on what subjects are undesirable. Brace yourselves, this is hard.

Hey Salvatore,
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 smile

…. 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.  smile
Edited 17 Feb, 2018 22:39
jeffbax
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.

JF
siovene
17 Feb, 2018 22:45
Andy
…. 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.
Yes, this will come rather quickly, independently of whatever minor corrections we will apply to the IOTD process.
AtmosFearIC
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 smile

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.
carastro
19 Feb, 2018 09:06
The whole of this thread for 18th  seems to have disappeared.

Carole
siovene
19 Feb, 2018 09:07
Please see https://www.astrobin.com/forum/c/astrobin/annoucements/catastrophic-data-loss/

Sorry smile
carastro
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.

Carole
Edited 19 Feb, 2018 09:12
siovene
19 Feb, 2018 09:15
Indeed, this is probably the biggest loss smile I'm sure it killed the enthusiasm of anybody wanting to post here. Shame. Sorry again!
RRBBarbosa
19 Feb, 2018 14:34
Sal, maybe you can lead this conversation to see if we can reach some conclusions.
 
Register or login to create to post a reply.