Brian Fulda:
If we're going to let a few odd stars at 600% zoom get in the way of the visibility this or any great image deserves, then IMO the judging has become too scrutinizing. To be fair, those artifacts are noticeable at 100%. The screenshots posted appear to be a 1:1 crop; not zoomed in at all. But yes, judges do pixel-peep and it makes it a tough process. I agree that zooming in past 1x zoom is unfair to the photographer but you don't have to do that here. You do have to open the giant image though. As it's been stated over and over in this thread, there are just too many images that are technically better than this image which fill the available 365 slots. And sometimes it's just a matter of timing. Having said that, there's plenty of mistakes made in the process of promoting images which are being fine-tuned. Some IOTD images just aren't worthy of it in my opinion, but that's not something I'd get specific about in an open forum. This image might be better than some of those, but the question is was it better than the other images that were candidates for IOTD at the time? I don't think taking a poll here is really fair because what you're doing is essentially asking if this image should be considered to be awarded IOTD which has already happened. It received a Top Pick. Being selected as IOTD is more than just a question of "Does this image deserve to be IOTD?" It's a question of, "Does this image deserve to be IOTD more than all of the other candidates?" Again, good image and astounding effort with that much data, but I think the right choices were made.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Brian Fulda:
Opening up the judging to a larger group (or better yet, just let AB users make a popular vote!) would reduce this. It can never be entirely eliminated, but 20 reviewers / 8 judges making these final decisions is far too few for a community with tens of thousands of users. 43% of IOTDs in the past year have come from repeat users. That number is far too high for there not to be a lot of favoritism going on. This dead horse has been beaten so hard and so many times there's nothing left of it.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
The reason why the last stage is not anonymized is that judges get fewer images compared to the earlier stages (as it's a funnel), and each judge can vote only once a week. This means that anonymizing does not prevent a judge to simply look for recently published images of that particular object.
I couldn't simply make it invisible to judges because they could just use an incognito window or another browser where are not logged in.
The complete solution for fully anonymity is to not display images in the IOTD/TP process to anyone until the process is over (which could take even a month, in case of IOTD or being close to being IOTD).
Does anybody really want that?
If you do, then I will do it for the special contests module I plan for the future, but personally I don't think it makes sense for the IOTD/TP. People mostly want to share their images, and wouldn't want to have to wait up to a month until their image is public just because of the IOTD/TP.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Timothy Martin:
This dead horse has been beaten so hard and so many times there's nothing left of it. What's left of those bones must be fossilized by now...
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Salvatore Iovene:
The reason why the last stage is not anonymized is that judges get fewer images compared to the earlier stages (as it's a funnel), and each judge can vote only once a week. This means that anonymizing does not prevent a judge to simply look for recently published images of that particular object.
I couldn't simply make it invisible to judges because they could just use an incognito window or another browser where are not logged in.
The complete solution for fully anonymity is to not display images in the IOTD/TP process to anyone until the process is over (which could take even a month, in case of IOTD or being close to being IOTD).
Does anybody really want that?
If you do, then I will do it for the special contests module I plan for the future, but personally I don't think it makes sense for the IOTD/TP. People mostly want to share their images, and wouldn't want to have to wait up to a month until their image is public just because of the IOTD/TP. Just have it be be blind and ask them to operate in good faith. If they don’t, replace them with judges that will. Their voting patterns should make it obvious if they are being biased by using external methods of accessing images they were asked to review blind and in good faith.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Brian Fulda:
Arun H:
Anthony Quintile:
Jeffrey’s image is only 2 weeks since posted.
Are you certain it won’t still get an IOTD?
-Anthony
I am also not a fan of this type of thread with a poll which can be taken to be a way of influencing the IOTD process and judges.
What if multiple people started posting images with polls questioning why image X or Y did or did not make TP/TPN/IOTD? It would subvert a process that is well established and multiple people over the years have made every effort to be fair and unbiased within the rules and parameters.
Interestingly, you just described exactly why this process is inherently biased / involves favoritism. Because the judging/reviewing panel is so small, bias and favoritism are naturally more prevalent throughout the submission process.
Opening up the judging to a larger group (or better yet, just let AB users make a popular vote!) would reduce this. It can never be entirely eliminated, but 20 reviewers / 8 judges making these final decisions is far too few for a community with tens of thousands of users. 43% of IOTDs in the past year have come from repeat users. That number is far too high for there not to be a lot of favoritism going on. @Brian Fulda and wouldn't a popular vote bias the voting towards the most popular astrophotographers or the most followed ones, regardless of the quality of the work? It might mean replacing a bias with simply a different one, a worse one IMO. The current process isn't perfect but ensures all the IOTD are top notch quality photos. And it doesn't surprise me that some colleagues have multiple IOTD - perhaps they have better gear, better skies or, helás, are better astrophotographers than the average. And why is 43% of them too high? What is your standard to make that claim? As far as I am concerned, I prefer having a system where quality prevails and perhaps miss some deserving photos than a system where popularity prevails.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Andre Vilhena:
@Brian Fulda and wouldn't a popular vote bias the voting towards the most popular astrophotographers or the most followed ones, regardless of the quality of the work? It might mean replacing a bias with simply a different one, a worse one IMO. 100% what Andre says. Would you really prefer an IOTD selected by "most likes"? Imagine people going to forums and Facebook groups betting to like their image for the IOTD  43% of IOTDs in the past year have come from repeat users. That number is far too high for there not to be a lot of favoritism going on. I interpret this as "it works because rewards the quality of the image regardless of who the photographer is". 208 astrophotographers (who are currently active) worldwide sounds like a good number, for the size of our niche, to be considered the top guns.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Andre Vilhena:
and wouldn't a popular vote bias the voting towards the most popular astrophotographers or the most followed ones, regardless of the quality of the work? It might mean replacing a bias with simply a different one, a worse one IMO. In the early days of AB, popular vote was how the IOTD was determined, and this type of bias was seen. That is why the current system was put in place. As far as the 208 astrophotographers - it is a fact that money spent on equipment, access to dark sites etc. offer an advantage. I would simply say that those 208 are fortunate in that regard and that is the nature of this hobby. As an aside - I do think that there is a good reason why the last stage is not anonymous besides the fact that judges can look up images. It allows judges, if they so choose, to nominate images that have something about them more than just pure quality. If it was truly blind, I think we would end up with a few astrophotographers dominating the IOTD even more than they already do.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Arun H:
Andre Vilhena:
and wouldn't a popular vote bias the voting towards the most popular astrophotographers or the most followed ones, regardless of the quality of the work? It might mean replacing a bias with simply a different one, a worse one IMO.
In the early days of AB, popular vote was how the IOTD was determined, and this type of bias was seen. That is why the current system was put in place.
As far as the 208 astrophotographers - it is a fact that money spent on equipment, access to dark sites etc. offer an advantage. I would simply say that those 208 are fortunate in that regard and that is the nature of this hobby.
As an aside - I do think that there is a good reason why the last stage is not anonymous besides the fact that judges can look up images. It allows judges, if they so choose, to nominate images that have something about them more than just pure quality. If it was truly blind, I think we would end up with a few astrophotographers dominating the IOTD even more than they already do. They don’t need to know who you are to judge an image on any level they desire. Knowing who you are isn’t relevant at all. Blind judging has been done across the arts and science spaces for a very very long time. There is nothing unique about Astrophotography that would warrant breaking away from standard methods. If it was truly blind I believe you’d have more diversity of winners, not less.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I think that it is unfair and unwarranted to suggest there is nepotism on the part of the judges. It is entirely logical that the quality of images produced by a group of astrophotographers is such that they are repeat achievers of IOTD.
I also think that it is unfair to claim that "If it were a notable imager who often gets IOTDs who posted this, it would have probably been awarded an IOTD no problem." You have no basis of fact for making this statement and I think it is insulting to the judges who devote considerable time and effort to make the very best decisions possible.
In my humble opinion, Salvatore has set up a very effective system that is supported by highly qualified reviewers and judges.
Please take these comments in the spirit in which they are intended. It is not my intent to stir up trouble but rather to simply express my opinion on the statements made in this thread.
Clear skies,
Kevin
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Salvatore Iovene:
=14px208 astrophotographers (who are currently active) worldwide sounds like a good number, for the size of our niche, to be considered the top guns. I must 100% disagree with you Salvatore. The notion of "top guns" has no merit in the judging of astrophotos, which according to your own FAQ should be based on the image's qualities ALONE. The fact that nearly half of IOTD awardees are repeat winners certainly can, in part, be chalked up to the fact that these are undoubtedly very talented individuals. However, holding these folks to a different standard severely handicaps new entrants into the ranks of top astorophotographers.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Timothy Martin:
Brian Fulda:
Opening up the judging to a larger group (or better yet, just let AB users make a popular vote!) would reduce this. It can never be entirely eliminated, but 20 reviewers / 8 judges making these final decisions is far too few for a community with tens of thousands of users. 43% of IOTDs in the past year have come from repeat users. That number is far too high for there not to be a lot of favoritism going on.
This dead horse has been beaten so hard and so many times there's nothing left of it. If you're so tired of hearing about it, maybe something needs to be done about it instead of letting the terrible existing system continue to be beaten to death.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Daniel Cimbora:
The notion of "top guns" has no merit in the judging of astrophotos I don't think Salvatore even remotely implied that being a "top gun" affects the judging of images. But it's just a fact that every time Evgeny Kissin and I square off on a Steinway D, he's gonna kick my ever-lovin' ass.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Kevin Dixon:
I think that it is unfair and unwarranted to suggest there is nepotism on the part of the judges. It is entirely logical that the quality of images produced by a group of astrophotographers is such that they are repeat achievers of IOTD.
I also think that it is unfair to claim that "If it were a notable imager who often gets IOTDs who posted this, it would have probably been awarded an IOTD no problem." You have no basis of fact for making this statement and I think it is insulting to the judges who devote considerable time and effort to make the very best decisions possible.
In my humble opinion, Salvatore has set up a very effective system that is supported by highly qualified reviewers and judges.
Please take these comments in the spirit in which they are intended. It is not my intent to stir up trouble but rather to simply express my opinion on the statements made in this thread.
Clear skies,
Kevin I appreciate the polite discourse, but I still respectfully disagree. If it were say, 10-20%, I would agree that the best of the best get rewarded multiple times fairly, but nearly 50% of repeat awards is indicative of a flawed / biased system. As I stated earlier, no voting system is perfect and free of bias, but opening up voting to more than just a couple of dozen people would undoubtedly benefit the process. Also, you are a reviewer, according to this page. So of course you are going to defend the judges/reviewers. Might have been useful info to mention in your reply.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Timothy Martin:
Daniel Cimbora:
The notion of "top guns" has no merit in the judging of astrophotos
I don't think Salvatore even remotely implied that being a "top gun" affects the judging of images. But it's just a fact that every time Evgeny Kissin and I square off on a Steinway D, he's gonna kick my ever-lovin' ass. But if you played at the same level, and were judged not merely by the merits of your playing but also by name recognition, you would feel slighted, no? [Timothy, based on your images and the awards they have received, this obviously is a bit of a hypothetical for you -- I am looking at it from the standpoint of us newcomers yet to fully refine our skills and produce consistent top images, but who nevertheless produce some good images now and again]
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Brian Fulda:
Kevin Dixon:
I think that it is unfair and unwarranted to suggest there is nepotism on the part of the judges. It is entirely logical that the quality of images produced by a group of astrophotographers is such that they are repeat achievers of IOTD.
I also think that it is unfair to claim that "If it were a notable imager who often gets IOTDs who posted this, it would have probably been awarded an IOTD no problem." You have no basis of fact for making this statement and I think it is insulting to the judges who devote considerable time and effort to make the very best decisions possible.
In my humble opinion, Salvatore has set up a very effective system that is supported by highly qualified reviewers and judges.
Please take these comments in the spirit in which they are intended. It is not my intent to stir up trouble but rather to simply express my opinion on the statements made in this thread.
Clear skies,
Kevin
I appreciate the polite discourse, but I still respectfully disagree. If it were say, 10-20%, I would agree that the best of the best get rewarded multiple times fairly, but nearly 50% of repeat awards is indicative of a flawed / biased system. As I stated earlier, no voting system is perfect and free of bias, but opening up voting to more than just a couple of dozen people would undoubtedly benefit the process.
Also, you are a reviewer, according to this page. So of course you are going to defend the judges/reviewers. Might have been useful info to mention in your reply. The problem with your posts, Brian, is that you make statements which are opinions but present them as facts. You do not know me and therefore should not assume that I am going to defend the system simply because I am a reviewer. If I felt that there were flaws in the system, I would readily point them out. And, I don't understand how you can arbitrarily pick a range (10-20%) and say that is acceptable. There is no factual basis for the statement. Suffice it to say that we'll agree to disagree but I respectfully request that you not make judgements about me without knowing me. Clear skies, Kevin
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Kevin Dixon:
Brian Fulda:
Kevin Dixon:
I think that it is unfair and unwarranted to suggest there is nepotism on the part of the judges. It is entirely logical that the quality of images produced by a group of astrophotographers is such that they are repeat achievers of IOTD.
I also think that it is unfair to claim that "If it were a notable imager who often gets IOTDs who posted this, it would have probably been awarded an IOTD no problem." You have no basis of fact for making this statement and I think it is insulting to the judges who devote considerable time and effort to make the very best decisions possible.
In my humble opinion, Salvatore has set up a very effective system that is supported by highly qualified reviewers and judges.
Please take these comments in the spirit in which they are intended. It is not my intent to stir up trouble but rather to simply express my opinion on the statements made in this thread.
Clear skies,
Kevin
I appreciate the polite discourse, but I still respectfully disagree. If it were say, 10-20%, I would agree that the best of the best get rewarded multiple times fairly, but nearly 50% of repeat awards is indicative of a flawed / biased system. As I stated earlier, no voting system is perfect and free of bias, but opening up voting to more than just a couple of dozen people would undoubtedly benefit the process.
Also, you are a reviewer, according to this page. So of course you are going to defend the judges/reviewers. Might have been useful info to mention in your reply.
The problem with your posts, Brian, is that you make statements which are opinions but present them as facts. You do not know me and therefore should not assume that I am going to defend the system simply because I am a reviewer. If I felt that there were flaws in the system, I would readily point them out.
And, I don't understand how you can arbitrarily pick a range (10-20%) and say that is acceptable. There is no factual basis for the statement.
Suffice it to say that we'll agree to disagree but I respectfully request that you not make judgements about me without knowing me.
Clear skies,
Kevin The problem with your post, Kevin, is that you were making defensive statements about the judging and reviewing process without disclosing that you actually are a reviewer. So you are inherently biased towards the current process / system. That is a fact, not an opinion.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Dark Matters Astrophotography:
They don’t need to know who you are to judge an image on any level they desire. Knowing who you are isn’t relevant at all. Blind judging has been done across the arts and science spaces for a very very long time. There is nothing unique about Astrophotography that would warrant breaking away from standard methods. @Brian Fulda that might be but you are not replying to any of the questions of my post. But for me the most interesting thing to learn why 20-30% is acceptable but 43% isn't - could you please elaborate the rationale for those numbers you mention and where they come from?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Andre Vilhena:
Dark Matters Astrophotography:
They don’t need to know who you are to judge an image on any level they desire. Knowing who you are isn’t relevant at all. Blind judging has been done across the arts and science spaces for a very very long time. There is nothing unique about Astrophotography that would warrant breaking away from standard methods.
@Brian Fulda that might be but you are not replying to any of the questions of my post. But for me the most interesting thing to learn why 20-30% is acceptable but 43% isn't - could you please elaborate the rationale for those numbers you mention and where they come from? Are you replying to me or Dark Matters Astrophotography? If you're replying to me, quote me and I'll do my best to answer.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Brian Fulda:
Kevin Dixon:
Brian Fulda:
Kevin Dixon:
I think that it is unfair and unwarranted to suggest there is nepotism on the part of the judges. It is entirely logical that the quality of images produced by a group of astrophotographers is such that they are repeat achievers of IOTD.
I also think that it is unfair to claim that "If it were a notable imager who often gets IOTDs who posted this, it would have probably been awarded an IOTD no problem." You have no basis of fact for making this statement and I think it is insulting to the judges who devote considerable time and effort to make the very best decisions possible.
In my humble opinion, Salvatore has set up a very effective system that is supported by highly qualified reviewers and judges.
Please take these comments in the spirit in which they are intended. It is not my intent to stir up trouble but rather to simply express my opinion on the statements made in this thread.
Clear skies,
Kevin
I appreciate the polite discourse, but I still respectfully disagree. If it were say, 10-20%, I would agree that the best of the best get rewarded multiple times fairly, but nearly 50% of repeat awards is indicative of a flawed / biased system. As I stated earlier, no voting system is perfect and free of bias, but opening up voting to more than just a couple of dozen people would undoubtedly benefit the process.
Also, you are a reviewer, according to this page. So of course you are going to defend the judges/reviewers. Might have been useful info to mention in your reply.
The problem with your posts, Brian, is that you make statements which are opinions but present them as facts. You do not know me and therefore should not assume that I am going to defend the system simply because I am a reviewer. If I felt that there were flaws in the system, I would readily point them out.
And, I don't understand how you can arbitrarily pick a range (10-20%) and say that is acceptable. There is no factual basis for the statement.
Suffice it to say that we'll agree to disagree but I respectfully request that you not make judgements about me without knowing me.
Clear skies,
Kevin
The problem with your post, Kevin, is that you were making defensive statements about the judging and reviewing process without disclosing that you actually are a reviewer. So you are inherently biased towards the current process / system. That is a fact, not an opinion. Again, Brian, you have no basis whatsoever for assuming that I am biased toward the system. Just because you believe I am biased does not make it so.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Brian Fulda:
How is this not an IOTD? I understand it’s subjective but something seems off with the judges if this doesn’t make an IOTD. Hmmm... my simple answer is that it looks very AI generated - Bortle 9?! Andveven after 10 winters I would not have been able to collect 560hrs. Maybe that's been a reason?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Brian Fulda:
https://app.astrobin.com/i/kybi79
This is my friend Jeff’s fantastic image of the Spaghetti Nebula, the most detailed image of this region anyone has ever shared. It has 250 likes, lots of people commenting this deserves to be IOTD.
How is this not an IOTD? I understand it’s subjective but something seems off with the judges if this doesn’t make an IOTD. Given how discussions about IOTD selections or lack thereof usually play out in the forums, I have to ask if Jeff wanted any of this scrutiny here beyond the usual IOTD/TP process?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
=14pxe=14px Kevin Dixon:
Brian Fulda:
Kevin Dixon:
Brian Fulda:
Kevin Dixon:
I think that it is unfair and unwarranted to suggest there is nepotism on the part of the judges. It is entirely logical that the quality of images produced by a group of astrophotographers is such that they are repeat achievers of IOTD.
I also think that it is unfair to claim that "If it were a notable imager who often gets IOTDs who posted this, it would have probably been awarded an IOTD no problem." You have no basis of fact for making this statement and I think it is insulting to the judges who devote considerable time and effort to make the very best decisions possible.
In my humble opinion, Salvatore has set up a very effective system that is supported by highly qualified reviewers and judges.
Please take these comments in the spirit in which they are intended. It is not my intent to stir up trouble but rather to simply express my opinion on the statements made in this thread.
Clear skies,
Kevin
I appreciate the polite discourse, but I still respectfully disagree. If it were say, 10-20%, I would agree that the best of the best get rewarded multiple times fairly, but nearly 50% of repeat awards is indicative of a flawed / biased system. As I stated earlier, no voting system is perfect and free of bias, but opening up voting to more than just a couple of dozen people would undoubtedly benefit the process.
Also, you are a reviewer, according to this page. So of course you are going to defend the judges/reviewers. Might have been useful info to mention in your reply.
The problem with your posts, Brian, is that you make statements which are opinions but present them as facts. You do not know me and therefore should not assume that I am going to defend the system simply because I am a reviewer. If I felt that there were flaws in the system, I would readily point them out.
And, I don't understand how you can arbitrarily pick a range (10-20%) and say that is acceptable. There is no factual basis for the statement.
Suffice it to say that we'll agree to disagree but I respectfully request that you not make judgements about me without knowing me.
Clear skies,
Kevin
The problem with your post, Kevin, is that you were making defensive statements about the judging and reviewing process without disclosing that you actually are a reviewer. So you are inherently biased towards the current process / system. That is a fact, not an opinion.
Again, Brian, you have no basis whatsoever for assuming that I am biased toward the system. Just because you believe I am biased does not make it so. The very fact that you are involved with the system makes you biased. That's what bias is. Wild that I have to explain this...
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Brian Fulda:
=14pxe=14px
Kevin Dixon:
Brian Fulda:
Kevin Dixon:
Brian Fulda:
Kevin Dixon:
I think that it is unfair and unwarranted to suggest there is nepotism on the part of the judges. It is entirely logical that the quality of images produced by a group of astrophotographers is such that they are repeat achievers of IOTD.
I also think that it is unfair to claim that "If it were a notable imager who often gets IOTDs who posted this, it would have probably been awarded an IOTD no problem." You have no basis of fact for making this statement and I think it is insulting to the judges who devote considerable time and effort to make the very best decisions possible.
In my humble opinion, Salvatore has set up a very effective system that is supported by highly qualified reviewers and judges.
Please take these comments in the spirit in which they are intended. It is not my intent to stir up trouble but rather to simply express my opinion on the statements made in this thread.
Clear skies,
Kevin
I appreciate the polite discourse, but I still respectfully disagree. If it were say, 10-20%, I would agree that the best of the best get rewarded multiple times fairly, but nearly 50% of repeat awards is indicative of a flawed / biased system. As I stated earlier, no voting system is perfect and free of bias, but opening up voting to more than just a couple of dozen people would undoubtedly benefit the process.
Also, you are a reviewer, according to this page. So of course you are going to defend the judges/reviewers. Might have been useful info to mention in your reply.
The problem with your posts, Brian, is that you make statements which are opinions but present them as facts. You do not know me and therefore should not assume that I am going to defend the system simply because I am a reviewer. If I felt that there were flaws in the system, I would readily point them out.
And, I don't understand how you can arbitrarily pick a range (10-20%) and say that is acceptable. There is no factual basis for the statement.
Suffice it to say that we'll agree to disagree but I respectfully request that you not make judgements about me without knowing me.
Clear skies,
Kevin
The problem with your post, Kevin, is that you were making defensive statements about the judging and reviewing process without disclosing that you actually are a reviewer. So you are inherently biased towards the current process / system. That is a fact, not an opinion.
Again, Brian, you have no basis whatsoever for assuming that I am biased toward the system. Just because you believe I am biased does not make it so.
The very fact that you are involved with the system makes you biased. That's what bias is. Wild that I have to explain this... This will be my last post on the subject. It is you who are biased because it is your friend's image. The flaws in the image have been pointed out quite factually and accurately. It is a breathtaking image but not worthy of IOTD.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Brian Fulda:
Andre Vilhena:
Dark Matters Astrophotography:
They don’t need to know who you are to judge an image on any level they desire. Knowing who you are isn’t relevant at all. Blind judging has been done across the arts and science spaces for a very very long time. There is nothing unique about Astrophotography that would warrant breaking away from standard methods.
@Brian Fulda that might be but you are not replying to any of the questions of my post. But for me the most interesting thing to learn why 20-30% is acceptable but 43% isn't - could you please elaborate the rationale for those numbers you mention and where they come from?
Are you replying to me or Dark Matters Astrophotography? If you're replying to me, quote me and I'll do my best to answer. Apologies Brian - indeed that wasn't your reply. But still the question remains: "why 20-30% is acceptable but 43% isn't - could you please elaborate the rationale for those numbers you mention and where they come from?"
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
