# 16 Nov, 2018 12:11
I agree with this, I tend to look for targets to see what I can get with my own equipment. Its annoying to keep opening images with no details.
However some people include them in the detail BOX rather than linking them in the "equipment used" categories, so is there a way to include the typed details as well?
# 16 Nov, 2018 12:24
|I agree. I will not exclude them but put them at the bottom with a clear indication that they lack data.|
# 16 Nov, 2018 18:03
# 21 Nov, 2018 16:24
This is pushing it a bit :-D I doubt it will happen in the near future.
Jarrett TrezzoI'm not aware of any online API that has this sort of information, and constellations have irregular shapes so it would be non trivial to build something. Even if we did it the dumbest possible way, and go with a 1 degree approximation, there would still be 129600 square degrees to map…
# 21 Nov, 2018 17:13
Astropy has a get_constellation method. However, Astropy is a Python package and not an online API.
# 21 Nov, 2018 17:14
|– oops sorry for the double post, AB was unavailable for a moment (?)|
# 21 Nov, 2018 17:16
|Nice, thanks! AstroBin is also written in Python so it's probably easy to integrate|
# 21 Nov, 2018 17:21
This suggestion will probably be further down the road, but I offer it now as it is related to search, and may be something you want to think about now.|
Many people have suggested a controlled vocabulary for gear. I agree. For example, a single entry for "Celestron C8 Edge HD" rather than six or seven as it is now. I would also suggest a controlled vocabulary for astronomical objects. For example, a way to truly see all photos of "M31". For this approach to work I imagine you would need to do a lot with suggestive search. So when a user is inputting data or searching for it, they can search "andromeda" or "messier 31" or "NGC224" and that would all give the same results as a search for M31. When there is ambiguity, for example a "C8" vs a "C8 Edge HD" both should pop up in a suggestive search result, and the user should be forced to pick one. dso-browser.com has this working for at least deep sky objects, and their suggestive search results seem to always put the most likely hit at top and then list less likely hits. For example, try M31 or M33 in their search to see what I mean. I don't know if this is at all practical for the "quick search" because that would be many different kinds of data to try to pull up quickly, but putting more required search fields into the input form could really help with data integrity, so I think this all related. Hopefully, I explained it well enough.
Keep up the good work. The speed increase is great and definitely noticed!
# 21 Nov, 2018 17:22
that's indeed the next item on the road map.
# 22 Nov, 2018 21:58
|I echo the request for pixel scale search! Very helpful suggestion!|
# 22 Nov, 2018 22:03
|Most of these requests are implemented 😁 Now I just need some time to test this with real data before I deploy it. I’m hoping by Sunday!|
# 23 Nov, 2018 18:20
|Please be patient as the new additions are deployed completely and the search index updates to fully support the new functionality!|
# 24 Nov, 2018 09:50
# 28 Nov, 2018 10:27
|Great and nice|
# 04 Dec, 2018 03:58
sorry to add a sour note.
# 04 Dec, 2018 10:59
I did not read through the whole thing so forgive me if this was pointed out.
How about a search button?
# 04 Dec, 2018 11:03
Hmm, where you do you want it? It's right there.|
# 04 Dec, 2018 11:28
Right next to the "Quick Search". Here is the reason. Many times the search term is already there with auto fill. It would be nice to pick it and not hit enter. Sometimes the keyboard is not available.
# 19 Dec, 2018 08:22
Dont't know if this was mentionned before: the minimum field radius selectable is 1 degree in the search filter. It seems far too big to me, and probably for people working with medium and long focal length.
It should be easy to fix this?
# 19 Dec, 2018 08:44
if you're looking for narrower field images, you can always set a max of 1 degree and ten sort by field size. That should help!
# 08 Jan, 2019 11:58
is it possible to use the OR logical operator in the search field?
I tried separating the values with comma, OR and || without success.
Don't know if I'm using the wrong syntax or is just not implemented.
If the latter, how difficult it would be to add this feature? (I know it was better to ask this before you reworked the seach module, far from me to ask you deep modification on a brand new piece of code).
But if is not too complicated, I think it could be useful. For example: if I want all (at least most of) the images done with a certain sensor I could put:
QHY23, QSI690, SX-814 etc to filter the images done with the ICX814 Sony sensor. This will deliver a more complete result instead of search for a single camera model.
Furthermore it could also help to fill the gap of consistency of the current equipment database. For example I could search for EDGE 800, C8 HD, EDGE HD 8 to include more images possible with this optic despite of the different names belonging to it in the current database.
This could be done using different browser windows with different term seach but in this case there will be separated partial results for which it will not possible to use the sort functions globally.
What do you think? Is it possible to add this easily?
|You have no new notifications.|