# 09 Apr, 2019 13:23
Roberto ColombariSteve MilneExactly Steve. I agree with you and it was something I proposed long time ago.
I absolutely agree that some rational discussion about selections could, in theory, be healthy. However, I’m not certain that the threads I have seen would qualify as rational discussion.
So let us crack on with IOTD-exit then.
# 09 Apr, 2019 13:26
# 09 Apr, 2019 13:27
As long as we don't take Brexit as example, for me is fine!
# 09 Apr, 2019 13:41
Roberto ColombariThere are many poorly chosen TPs (and occasionally, some IOTDs), in my opinion. I will mark myself "out of competition" and will just enjoy astrophotography. Life is too short. I will continue as a Reviewer, because I want to give just recognition to those very nice images that appear here everyday.
# 09 Apr, 2019 13:49
Andrea AlessandrelliSteve MilneAs long as we don't take Brexit as example, for me is fine!
I’m sure we cannot make as bad a job of IOTD-exit
# 09 Apr, 2019 16:42
Just a comment a simple : I really like this challenge, specifically the TP challenge !
IOTD is above , but when your image is TP, it is TP by itself.
IOTD means for me competition to other TP images, and could be more a matter of taste, may be.
So TP and IOTD give the thrill (and life to astrobin) to enhance our processing from setup , acquisition and processing , Please keep all that !
It is small reward to all the time spent and a lot of effort , but when one of my image gets TP, I am like a child receving a "chocalate medal "
I love chocolate !
AMHO, It will be a bit boring without them , TP and IOTD long life !
# 09 Apr, 2019 19:49
I went through on the pictures of the last 5 days just for my curiosity how the system works according to my taste.|
I found 4-5 pictures out of cca. 1000 which could have been TP, but not selected, and there are 3 pics out of 30 which is TP but I would not chose.
Of course this reflects only my taste, but finally TP works in 90% for me, I like it.
# 09 Apr, 2019 20:03
The issue is more concerned on those valuable that don't get TP.|
If you see 2 astrolandscapes images in 5 days (IMHO these aren't astroimages, but I know that's my personal opinion ) going TP and IOTD while, for instance, Alessandro's M33 was ignored, there's something that can be improved…
# 09 Apr, 2019 20:28
agree, TP is worth to enhance to ensure that good pics are not ignored, however I'm not sure how…
maybe the transparency, what you have mentioned in the beginning, is not a bad idea at all, it can force the submitters/reviewers to make more careful selection
# 09 Apr, 2019 20:42
Exactly, this was my idea
# 10 Apr, 2019 02:44
|I resigned as a judge as wanted to remain eligible to compete for TP/IOTD - some of us like Arnauld enjoy the thrill of competition. For me it makes me want to continue to improve my skills, and to have a standard to measure my work against. Without this Astrobin would be yet another reference gallery, a useful one certainly, but without any compelling reason to visit regularly.|
# 10 Apr, 2019 05:07
I agree with most TP/IOTD and it's a quick way for us to see those great images! I don't think we should abolish them.|
I hope every IOTD staff strictly follow the standard we have been discussed few weeks ago
# 10 Apr, 2019 05:26
One thing we have to admit is that Astrobin has a relatively short history and the community here probably only contains somewhere between 1% to 5% of the global astrophotography people. We simply do not have that many highly experienced people volunteering to serve as submitters/reviewers/judges, given how much work and how many of them are required each year. It's unavoidable that some of them make mistakes every once a while, or have tastes that are different from others. It's very natural.|
You can expose their names when there is a TP or IOTD that's less favored by your taste, and put pressure on them to make them "do a better job." However, I dare to predict that if you do so, things will quickly evolve into finger pointing. Next time, fewer people will volunteer to be submitters/reviewers/judges, and those who volunteer will be even less experienced ones.
I can also tell you that I have served in many review panels for international professional observatories and research grants. (Yes, some of you download professional data to process, and some of the data may come from observational proposals that were reviewed by me or supported by grants reviewed by me.) The review panels can be criticized, and reviewed by even higher aboves. A panel can be re-structured or the process can be changed, if the members do not do a good job and if the community no longer believe the process is fair. (This happened recently to one of the space telescopes to address certain biases in the review processes.) However, in all cases I have seen, none of the single reviewers were exposed and tied to specific cases. The community often know who are in the panel, but they will not know who is responsible for which decision. This is not considered as lack of transparency. Instead, this is to protect the individual panel members to make decisions without being affected by external pressure. The panel as a whole has to take the responsibility and to shield each other from finger pointing. Is this the only correct way of doing things? I don't know. But I do know that this is established by learning from the mistakes we made in the past many decades.
Personally, I can comfortably admit that making mistakes is just human. Even professional scientists make mistakes, more so for amateur astronomers who are continuously learning. I view the current TP/IOTD process as a way for the entire Astrobin community to learn and to improve together. I don't mind seeing mistakes during the processes. We can discuss how we can learn from past mistakes, but exposing names is never a healthy thing.
# 10 Apr, 2019 06:03
|I don't have anything more to add, but would like to +1 everything Wei-Hao Wang said.|
# 10 Apr, 2019 08:07
I would be interested in learning how you come up with that estimation.
# 10 Apr, 2019 08:18
+1 for everything Wei-Hao said.|
It is unfair to question today why an image of the past wasn't a TP. There is a specific time period in which the review process takes place. There are occasions where the image number and quality (by anyone's standards) during that time frame, may be low. (Like after purchasing new astronomical equipment and leading to a global cloud coverage )
Don't waste energy chasing a holy grail (the "perfect" judging system). Let the procedure be enjoyable and beneficial for both the volunteers and the participants.
And please, don't take us our daily dosage of chocolate, as Arnaud said
# 10 Apr, 2019 09:06
Me too, I agree with Wei-Hao. Errors belong to human.|
What if they are happening more with someone than others?
Just to give a concrete example, taking 2 of my images:
The first is an assembling of hundreds of tiles from DSS2, it took us months to put it together.
The second image, maybe not so appealing, reveals the faint IFN around OC and NGC4945. IFN is not very often present in images of this field and moreover is a quite unusual field since I've included NGC4945 instead of CenA.
They haven't been neither featured TP while images of something in the foreground with some stars behind (a very little creativity, there are tons like them around the net) got TP/IOTD easily.
Has this something to do with the images or with the authors ?
# 10 Apr, 2019 09:13
Salvatore IoveneMy bold guesstimate and gut feeling. There are quite a few forums/magazines/social media in East Asia and US that I read. There we can see many names, and some of the names appear here. This gives a rough estimate about the fraction of active astrophotography fans that are also members of Astrobin. The fraction is probably similar (within factor of five, for example) for Europe and South America (again my guess), but can be very different (more than factor of 10) for China (where there are many astrophotographers but very different internet sociology). It can also highly depend on where we draw the line between general astronomy fans who occasionally take one or two images and astrophotography fans, and also the line between astrophotography and landscape photography with stars or Milky Way or aurora. So don't take this number too seriously. There is no hard science behind it.Wei-Hao WangHi Wei-Hao,
# 10 Apr, 2019 09:21
Roberto ColombariRoberto, do you have any TP/IOTD images of yours, for which you don't believe they worth the award?
# 10 Apr, 2019 09:21
I cannot speak for the referees about the specific examples you raised. However, as I mentioned in my earlier message in this thread, I encourage the referee group to openly discuss selection criteria/guidelines instead of discussing it in a closed forum. For discussion about the general criteria (not related to specific pictures or people), it is good to engage the entire community. This kind of transparency can benefit everyone, especially beginners. This is a good way for the entire Astrobin community to learn and improve together.
# 10 Apr, 2019 09:26
Die Launische DivaYes, if you don't mind I'll send you via PM. Just to avoid finger pointing at this stage
# 10 Apr, 2019 09:58
Roberto ColombariNo need to do so, Roberto, this wasn't my intention. I was asking for examples from your work and not others. Sorry for not being clear.
It is a pity we see complaints here for "false positives" and not for "false negatives".
# 10 Apr, 2019 10:04
Die Launische Diva
If you are meaning images that are worthy and haven't been chosen, I gave you the example of Alessandro's M33…IMHO it deserves at least a TP
# 10 Apr, 2019 10:09
I was asking for images of yours which got an award but you don't consider them good enough.
# 10 Apr, 2019 10:11
A few weeks ago I pointed a series of poorly chosen TPs in the Reviewers' closed forum. Those were not merely dubious taste images, but really faulty ones, with elementary glaring errors such as bad focus, trailed stars and gradients. One mosaic even had a faulty tile with a different background color! Immediately after that, one of the really ugly TPs was retracted, and I had noticed that the frequency of bad apples subdued for a while. Then, again, the series of dubious taste TPs resumed, including the several MW/observatories collages. There is mounting evidence of mutual back-patting, conscious or unconscious. I'm not advocating external/public transparency, but only internal transparency - reviewers should be able to know the others reviewers' choices.
|You have no new notifications.|