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

TOP PICK clarification request

gnomus
03 Dec, 2019 15:06
Die Launische Diva
I agree 100%.Regarding the submitters workload,  what if each submitter is presented with only a random subset of the available images of a given time frame?….

Close to being a great idea, but not all submitters will be checking their workload every day.  Some may be on holiday for a couple of weeks.  Some submitters will be less ‘diligent’ than others.  The images going to the less diligent submitter would be disadvantaged.  But something along the lines of a ‘set’ of images going to a ‘set’ of submitters sounds like a good idea.  I think it might also help if submitters (and reviewers) had the option of clearing images from their own queue, so that they were not swamped with images they might already have considered and rejected.  Indeed, those they have put through could also be cleared from their queue in order to reduce ‘clutter’.
Edited 03 Dec, 2019 15:09
RRBBarbosa
03 Dec, 2019 17:47
Tolga
Ruben Barbosa
Hi everybody,I have a question for AB submitters and reviweres.For the sake of transparency of the image selection criteria (Top Picks / IOTD), I would like a short clarification.

Recently I posted 2 images, NGC 7000 (https://www.astrobin.com/kqgqyl) and The Cone Nebula (https://www.astrobin.com/euetw9/), both with almost 200 likes, several comments where members liked the processing, the detail, the color, the resolution, etc.

As I share the same sentiment from the members who commented the images, and find that the AB jury had a different opinion, then I would like to be clarified on the following questions:

1. Did submitters vote for these images? If not, I would like to know why the two images do not deserve to be TP?

2. Did reviewers vote for these images? If not, I would like to know why the two images do not deserve to be TP?

I think no one is offended by this request for clarification, but I often see TP images that do not deserve to be TP, as well as images that deserve to be TP not voted on.

Regards,
Ruben Barbosa

Hi Ruben,

I don't normally do this but since you asked I will. I am a judge not a reviewer or submitter but if these two images came to TPs I would not have picked them as IOTD and here is why. On your NGC7000 the background is too noisy and the bright areas lack dynamic range. On the second image Cone Nebula from ChileScope, in general it's excellent until you take a closer look where there is a horizontal line across the entire image. We have a loose guideline thanks to some of the previous judges and we tend to look for excellence when it comes to professionally acquired data unless it's a very unique target.

Sometimes people get a lot of likes and comments because they have many followers, sometimes it's because they own the same camera etc. This is why we moved away from selecting images based on number of likes and now we have a process. 3 independent people has to select an image to become IOTD.

Now has there been times where images were overlooked? Of course we are all human and can make mistakes.
Thank you for your clarification Tolga. I was not referring to the IOTD, but simply to the TP election criteria, which in the meantime I already understood. As I understand it, the photos to be eligible need to have detailed exhibit information, although I have found IOTD winning photos without this data mentioned.

In conclusion, it only depends on the submitter criteria (not predefined guidelines).

I am enlightened and grateful for your attention. I am also pleased that my request for clarification is contributing to a constructive debate that will greatly benefit the Astrobin community.

Regards,
Ruben Barbosa
Edited 03 Dec, 2019 17:48
libaoyuan1989
05 Dec, 2019 06:57
I know it sounds unacceptable but I have to say that lots of people in this forum comment not because your image is really top but on the purpose of encouragement and friendship. I think people shouldn't consider their image quality based on the comments and likes. When Reviewer and Judges strictly followed their standard,  their choices will be the best benchmark.

Chilescope Cone nebula which got top pick before (same data with yours) :
https://www.astrobin.com/391875/E/?page=3&nc=collection
https://www.astrobin.com/391934/?page=3&nc=collection
I think both have great color, contrast and depths. I believe that's why they've been chosen. They are the images people would say WOW when they first see them.
Edited 05 Dec, 2019 07:12
JH
05 Dec, 2019 17:56
Here is an opinion from the masses of AB'ers that would never win a top pick or IOTD.

I've been gone from this site for about a year and nothing has changed regarding the things that people are unhappy with.  I feel like I haven't missed a beat.  In many ways, that is a good thing.

smile
Andys_Astropix
05 Dec, 2019 20:32
Hey Team,
Earlier, I wrote 6 paragraphs on suggested improvements to the existing IOTD/TP system (it’s on page 3 of this thread).
They are designed to keep everyone happy.
Does no-one have an opinion on these?
cheers
Andy
Chris-PA
05 Dec, 2019 21:19
My initial impression was that all the limits specified in your post could be used to shut out newcomers from receiving awards (or at the very least, it provided a means for those who have received awards to keep nominating their friends back and forth to keep the pool of those receiving IOTDs and TPs small). I understand that there are some people who think the qualifications for submitting, reviewing, etc. are low (and well, they are non-existent, aren't they?), but with the three layers currently in place, an unworthy image slipping through is a rarity.

For me, I think the greater problem is the worthy images not receiving recognition. That was my complaint in my first comment - I talked about four images: The best image of the Soul I'd ever seen (a 200+ hour project that shows it!). An image of Abell 72 done with a 130 mm refractor that was better than a professional one done by a professional astrophotographer with a 20 cm RC (full disclosure: the author of that image reached out to me to let me know he took himself out of consideration for any IOTDs or TPs - I didn't know that before I posted). An image of the Cas A supernova remnant done with a 10" Newtonian that rivals images I've seen of it done with a 24" RC (in other words, a clear best-in-class image of that target by an amateur with amateur equipment) and two new discoveries in a single image that almost no one on Astrobin had seen 9-10 days after it was posted.

How does limiting submitters/reviewers/judges to people with at least X number of IOTDs fix that? I know that there are people who disagree, but I've always been in the camp that believes there could be significantly more Top Picks - there is so much top-notch work being done on this site that isn't getting special recognition. Over the years (even since I've been here, which is pretty recent), the site has grown exponentially and the number of great astrophotographers has also increased. We're still (obviously) limited to one IOTD, but I think the number of TPs should reflect the growth and the overall increase in the quality that the community is producing. I don't see what these limits do to address that. But I did like your first point: "that an opt in button be available for photographers who want their images considered for Iotd/TP selection, and data fields are mandatory if they choose to enter". The rest just didn't feel like the right approach to me.
tolgagumus
05 Dec, 2019 23:55
Andy 01
They are designed to keep everyone happy.

LOL
Barry-Wilson
06 Dec, 2019 09:31
As well as being able to view the image Title in the Submission Queue (the idea from a previous post of mine in this thread), I also think it could be beneficial for Submitters to view images already Submitted by the Submitting team as an aid to help broaden the submission pool (broaden in this sense being target subject or imager or astronomical class {eg lunar, solar, cometary, planetary, dso, pn etc} and any other category that we would wish to include).  This could be accomplished by a link to another page of thumbnails.

Ruben - thank you for your patience with regard this thread and it diverting off topic from your OP  smile.

Thoughts?
Edited 06 Dec, 2019 11:53
Snjór
06 Dec, 2019 15:44
Barry Wilson
As well as being able to view the image Title in the Submission Queue (the idea from a previous post of mine in this thread), I also think it could be beneficial for Submitters to view images already Submitted by the Submitting team as an aid to help broaden the submission pool (broaden in this sense being target subject or imager or astronomical class {eg lunar, solar, cometary, planetary, dso, pn etc} and any other category that we would wish to include).  This could be accomplished by a link to another page of thumbnails.Ruben - thank you for your patience with regard this thread and it diverting off topic from your OP  smile.

Thoughts?

I think they both useful ideas Barry. In my opinion system work pretty well, is democratic, have wide variety of submitters, reviewers and judges and it would seem vast majority of AB users either are pleased or have no opinion on matter.
-Sigga
GabrielSiegl
06 Dec, 2019 16:23
Andy 01
Hey Team,Earlier, I wrote 6 paragraphs on suggested improvements to the existing IOTD/TP system (it’s on page 3 of this thread).
They are designed to keep everyone happy.
Does no-one have an opinion on these?
cheers
Andy

I think your ideas would be a big improvement to the IOTD/TP system
Easy and transparent. -vote-

Best regards
Gabriel
Edited 06 Dec, 2019 16:25
jerahian
06 Dec, 2019 18:49
Here's a simple idea:  Build in a nomination process by all users before an image reaches the submitter queue.  So, for an image to make it to the submitter queue, it must first be nominated by at least 2 people (a nomination and a second).  This is different than a like, which has a social element to it.  A nomination is a separate explicit action that says, "I think this image should be considered for recognition."  The image owner would not know who nominated the image, nor how many nominations they received (this would keep it from gaining a social element).  It would be an internal system metric that would accomplish the following:

  • Reduce the number of images in the submitter queue, thus lessening their load
  • Allow a community-based first-pass of "nomination for consideration."  It would weed out lesser quality images, thus allowing higher quality images to present themselves more prominently to the submitters.
  • Totally separate and different than the social, back-slapping, "well done" feel of a like.
[Optional] Images could be flagged with a "Nominated" icon, which would carry its own feeling of reward across a wider group of people, even if it never makes it to a Top Pick.  It could be a new wider "first step" to the altar of IOTD.

Regards,
Ara
Edited 06 Dec, 2019 18:51
coles44
07 Dec, 2019 15:58
Here is an idea. Let's take the example of the NFL and the NBA and invoke a version of the "challenge rule.' Let everyone nominate up to five (or some other number) images a year as Top Picks. If they feel someones image (or one of their images) has not been recognized (as said a few times here on this forum), nominate that image. That might smooth out just a bit.

Remember, we are never going to take out judgement and opinion out of the process, or should we. This is art not analytics. :-)

Eric
olaskarpen
07 Dec, 2019 16:49
I have also been frustrated by the choice of TP and IOTD.I too like many others, think i deserve more TP. smilesmile But just be patient and keep creating and submitting more great photos
https://www.astrobin.com/users/olaskarpen/
Edited 07 Dec, 2019 17:23
 
Register or login to create to post a reply.