 #... |
|---|
|
Hello, I am new to Astrobin but I am confused by the Data Source classifications: Self-acquired: Backyard, Traveler, Own remote observatory Downloaded: Amateur hosting facility, Public amateur data, Professional data 1. Is data obtained from places that rent telescope time, ChileScope for example, actually self-acquired? I see some people listing it as such, but the model is images acquired through a booking interface. There is no user control of the telescope or the cameras at any point. I would have called this "Rental time on a remote telescope" 2. What is the classification for self-acquired data from own equipment that is placed in one of the many dark-sky rental site observatories? It's certainly self-acquired, since the acquisition process is identical to "backyard", but the observatory where the equipment is placed is owned by a third party. I would have called this: "Own telescope at a hosted observatory" 3. Some of the hosting facilities, ChileScope for example again, provide telescope time to amateurs and professionals alike. Are they Amateur hosting facilities, Semi-professional, or both? Is that distinction even important? I hope to cause no offence but the system might be clearer if adjusted a little: Self-acquired: Backyard, Traveler, Own remote observatory, Own telescope at a hosted observatory Downloaded: Rental time on a remote telescope, Public amateur data, Professional data |
 #... |
|---|
|
Hi, I think that your post proves that the definition is kinda fuzzy and it's difficult to provide a precise categorization. In my mind: Self-acquired = where local or remote, you own the equipment (fully or partially) Downloaded = you don't own the equipment and only downloaded the data. This is especially valid if the data is shared. Your proposal is much clearer, I would implement it but migrating existing data automatically will cause errors. What do you propose? |
2.61
#... |
|---|
| Can you make it so the previous options remain on the images that have them, but are no longer selectable on new images? |
#... |
|---|
|
Hi Salvatore, I agree with you that the most important distinction is between Self-acquired and Downloaded. The sub-categorizations with in these are details. How would you feel about any/all of the following: 1a. Display the words "Self-acquired" or "Downloaded" on the Technical Cards. May of us are as impressed with good data as we are with beautiful processing, and it's only fair to make the distinction as to where the data came from more clear. 1b. Add your definitions (exactly as your post above) as a note on the "Basic Information" page so people, many of whom are non-native English speakers, know the difference 2. Add the category "Own telescope at a hosted observatory" to the list of options within Self-Acquired, without changing any prior classifications as Brian suggests 3a. Alias the current database entries "Amateur hosting facility" with "Rental time on a remote telescope". I'm not proposing to migrate the database entries, just the text that displays for this particular enumeration. Perhaps it's an alias. 3b. If 3a feels unfair to people who already selected it for their images, then insert the new category "Rental time on a remote telescope", and make this the first item on the list. Make "Amateur hosting facility" last on the list, and whilst allowing people to select it, perhaps display a note saying it is a depreciated category and asking people to choose one of the others if they can. Of all these (1) would make a big difference to understanding were people's data comes from, while (2) would cater for growing segment of the market. Appreciate that (3) is more difficult, although (3b) might be feasible. Thank you so much for Astrobin by the way :-) |
#... |
|---|
| Hi Salvatore, what do you think of these proposals? |
#... |
|---|
|
Hi Anding, sorry for dropping the ball on this, I was totally engrossed in some very important and time-consuming tasks. I will add this to my issue tracker so I don't forget, then give it some thought and let you know. Thanks again! |
#... |
|---|
|
Thank you Salvatore. Janko makes a good point in the other post that it’s really about properly crediting the source. Maybe we don’t need fixed options in data source, but rather credits, examples: Image credits Data acquisition: own Image processing: own Image credits Data acquisition: James Bond Image processing: own, Daniel Craig Image credits Data acquisition: ChileScope Image processing: own Making the data acquisition credit prominent could help the site’s partner program. Credits should be mandatory at image upload. |
#... |
|---|
| That's also an interesting idea, Anding! |
12.82
#... |
|---|
|
Hmm. I dont use plateformes like chilescope because i like spending Time outside with my Gear staring at the Sky But, if one pays for data from chilescope. He is legaly the data owner. It might be difficult to oppose telescope owners to data owners. My 2 cents. JF |
#... |
|---|
|
JF, what would you think of this scenario? I acquire my own data with my own gear under the stars but then sign an “image processing service contract” with you, so that you will process the data for me in PI but I retain legal ownership of the image. Then I upload the image to Astrobin and simply cite PI as the processing tool. Am I being honest? You can take this one step further, I sign a data acquisition service contract with ChileScope to get some data, then you process the image for me under contract, and I upload it to Astrobin citing simply an ASA scope, FLI camera and PI. I get a top pick because people think I’m incredible. Is that appropriate? I believe that data acquisition is equal to image processing in terms of the production of the final image. There has to be a distinction drawn between one’s own work and work that one has been paid to have done under a service contract. It’s just about proper crediting. |
