Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
try to reach the level. Your images are amazing. This image: https://www.astrobin.com/in5ci1/E/is one of the best I have seen. On Astrobin, or anywhere. It deserves to be recognized, as IOTD, or even IOTY if that existed, or something. I will point out: It was taken with a 1 meter scope. How many of us have access to such equipment? Or such locations? What kind of contest is it that pools images people take in their backyards with these images? How do you propose the regular contributors of Astrobin reach this level?
|
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.
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
Stop this. You will not fool me. When you say that judges are not experts and when you assume that a random process would do better you are in a very attacking behaviour. At least you don't respect some of the best experts of what your are trying to learn.
We give our time and experience for the community. And we do it faithfully.
Go imaging please, this is turning ridiculous. That's a discussion about a role/persona in a process. Not specific people. There is no formal training given to fill the role of Judge, Reviewer, or Submitter in the context of the IOTD process. Your attacks on me are directly towards me. See the difference?
|
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:
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
try to reach the level.
Your images are amazing. This image:
https://www.astrobin.com/in5ci1/E/
is one of the best I have seen. On Astrobin, or anywhere. It deserves to be recognized, as IOTD, or even IOTY if that existed, or something.
I will point out: It was taken with a 1 meter scope. How many of us have access to such equipment? Or such locations? What kind of contest is it that pools images people take in their backyards with these images? How do you propose the regular contributors of Astrobin reach this level? *Thank you 😊 You are right I am lucky. But the story is not I had a 1 meter for my birthday. I worked 30 years on many scopes, developping New processing technics before professionals look at me. Now I give my time for research observations and in return I can use the free slots. You Can also find in my galerie some APOD with a 14" backyard scope. And I get in average 3 IOTD per year. Not preventing no one from breathing.. Jf
|
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.
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
You Can also find in my galerie some APOD with a 14" backyard scope. And I get in average 3 IOTD per year. Indeed, it is possible to get an APOD or IOTD with such scopes. The question is a simple one: which scope can be used to take better images? A one meter scope on a mountaintop? Or an 10" reflector in a backyard? If equipment didn't matter, if everything was indeed equal, why are people spending hundreds of thousands on remote observatories? By the way, whatever change we do or not make should not take away from the recognition images like the one I shared that you took are getting. I want to make that clear.
|
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:
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
You Can also find in my galerie some APOD with a 14" backyard scope. And I get in average 3 IOTD per year.
Indeed, it is possible to get an APOD or IOTD with such scopes. The question is a simple one: which scope can be used to take better images? A one meter scope on a mountaintop? Or an 10" reflector in a backyard? If equipment didn't matter, if everything was indeed equal, why are people spending hundreds of thousands on remote observatories? By the way, whatever change we do or not make should not take away from the recognition images like the one I shared that you took are getting. I want to make that clear. *Yes. Equipment matters. You are absolutly right. Some can aford for Big scopes in Chile. I cannot. So I worked to access pro scopes 😊 But even with a 135mm Lens you Can make some incredible images. I think talent is the most important Factor.
|
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.
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
But even with a 135mm Lens you Can make some incredible images. I think talent is the most important Factor. If talent is the most important factor, why are people investing in big scopes in dark locations? The answer actually is simple. Talent matters. But equipment matters too. As does location. A talented astrophotographer with access to big scopes and dark locations can do much more. Could you take the image I shared with a 135mm lens? I think a functioning community should reserve its highest recognition of images like yours (and those of others) as it does today. But it should also create places for recognition for talented astrophotographers without access to such equipment. Or places. That is my only point.
|
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.
Geoff:
Well as a submitter I can assure you that I have no idea who the imagers are. I could check with a bit of effort, but I don’t. I resent the implication that I and others are picking solely on the basis of “big names”. If the same people are getting more nominations is it perhaps possible that it is because they are producing the best images? Geoff, Sorry to offend. I'm not accusing anyone of anything and have not implied that the submitters, reviewers or judges are unethical. I'm suggesting that there are problems with the process of IOTD, and IMO it would be nice to see a greater diversity of imagers and images represented. It's totally fine if you or anyone doesn't agree with me.
|
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 first step would honestly be doing a community wide survey. For all the talk in this thread, if the majority of users were found to be pretty okay with how it works then why change it? This is a fair point! If the majority of the Abin community is happy with the current process, then that certainly reduces the incentive for the owner to make changes.
|
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:
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
But even with a 135mm Lens you Can make some incredible images. I think talent is the most important Factor.
If talent is the most important factor, why are people investing in big scopes in dark locations? The answer actually is simple. Talent matters. But equipment matters too. As does location. A talented astrophotographer with access to big scopes and dark locations can do much more. Could you take the image I shared with a 135mm lens? I think a functioning community should reserve its highest recognition of images like yours (and those of others) as it does today. But it should also create places for recognition for talented astrophotographers without access to such equipment. Or places. That is my only point. *I understand your point. I would love such a system. A perfect system should bring this dual recognition and I would immediatly suscribe. If you find such a marvelous system based on human process, whatever the subject (not only AP), please tell me. Currently we at least have this iotd one, tring to improove. Clear skies. JF
|
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:
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
You Can also find in my galerie some APOD with a 14" backyard scope. And I get in average 3 IOTD per year.
Indeed, it is possible to get an APOD or IOTD with such scopes. The question is a simple one: which scope can be used to take better images? A one meter scope on a mountaintop? Or an 10" reflector in a backyard? If equipment didn't matter, if everything was indeed equal, why are people spending hundreds of thousands on remote observatories? By the way, whatever change we do or not make should not take away from the recognition images like the one I shared that you took are getting. I want to make that clear. I sure hope they are not spending hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get IotD, haha. @Salvatore Iovene, I hope you do not mind me pinging you in this thread, but in in terms of thinking about changes to the IotD here is a minor one (not sure how minor it is in terms of coding): We should consider using the automatic re-submission for the Top Pick level as well. This has nothing to do with activity, but more do do with giving images a fair shake. That is to say, if the first half of Reviewers do not like an image, perhaps the second will half will(or maybe a combination of both). This system already exists on the Top Pick Nomination level. It is very rare for an image to reach the 80% of views on the first submission, and all of my "failed" images always get resubmitted multiple times. In that sense, every Submitter has had a chance to view the image. It had every possible opportunity to get votes and did not do so. Before I might have been able to reason that the Submitters who got my image just had different tastes and perhaps the other half would of liked it. Now that is no longer the case, and I think TPN's are more legitimate because of that. Additionally, some of my TPN's would not be TPN's if it was not resubmitted one or two times. I have to say its massively more fair to everyone this way. Therefore we should apply this system to Top Picks as well. The way I envision this is is if you don't get the required votes from the first half of Reviewers, then it goes to the second half, and then it just exits the system if it did not get the required votes. No need to keep track views and keep resubmitting over and over. TP's would be more legitimate this way, as no one could sit around and say that maybe they just got the wrong set of Reviewers, or maybe they got the inactive Reviewers, etc. This would also make things a bit more "democratic" (in that your image will be viewed by every possible person in the IotD process if needed) and less random in that you are not banking on getting the right set of volunteers to see your image for it to succeed.
|
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.
We should consider using the automatic re-submission for the Top Pick level as well. This has nothing to do with activity, but more do do with giving images a fair shake. That is to say, if the first half of Reviewers do not like an image, perhaps the second will half will(or maybe a combination of both). +1
|
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:
I will point out: It was taken with a 1 meter scope. How many of us have access to such equipment? Or such locations? What kind of contest is it that pools images people take in their backyards with these images? How do you propose the regular contributors of Astrobin reach this level? I just want to take the best images I can take. I don't know about reaching that level. It's not really my life goal. But I do know that my first IOTD (I've only gotten three of them in four years) was an image taken with a C11 from my Bortle 8 back yard. I thought it was amazing that one of my images would be recognized against the backdrop of the incredible work that is displayed here. Far more meaningful than winning some Best Image Taken on a Wednesday from a Bortle 8 Back Yard Within Five Miles of the World's Second-Busiest Airport With a Scope That Costs Less Than $5,000 category. We all have our crosses to bear and our limitations to overcome. Recognition by my peers is really nice, but it's not what drives me. What drives me is to learn and improve every single day. There are already three categories here: TPN, TP, and IOTD. Plenty of backyard imagers with modest equipment win one of those three every single day. Diluting the process with inscrutable, un-policeable, un-administrable categories would only diminish its value and its impact and increase the level of dissatisfaction. If I ever get another IOTD, I want it to be against the very best possible competition. Otherwise, it's just a participation trophy. I'm not really into participation trophies. Nor am I into recriminations against the Almighty because life isn't fair.
|
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.
Wow this thread has gotten quite long. I've missed it all until now since I was driving back from the eclipse. I needed a rather large bag of popcorn to get through it. I have to 100% stand by JF's comments here. He's hit the nail right on the head and he has every right to attack you in his responses. You told him he has no idea what he's doing. Also, no matter how you slice this cake, your gallery is loaded with top pick nominations and not a single IOTD which implies you're disappointed and or salty because you've never been on the front page. To be frank... I can't blame you, I would be too! Editing your original post to say 'this has nothing to do with my images personally' when you already called IOTD a farce is nothing more than an attempt to hide your bitterness, and every one of us reading this thread sees that. This is not attacking you, this is simply stating facts. Like Salvatore said before, you can't please everyone. It would definitely appear that you're one of those folks. To the topic: Now, your complaint about how dust is of preference.... I'm perfectly fine with that. Dust is amazing and shows that you put forth effort with your integration. Dust isn't hard to get, but it is rather hard to process properly! SHO images are great, but for lack of better terms have become 'vanilla' and nothing SHO is unique anymore. You've seen one Heart nebula SHO, you've seen them all. Seems to be quite a few galaxies in the IOTD history as well, not sure where you come off saying we're not seeing galaxies at all. That's definitely untrue. There does seem to be some repetition on targets, you aren't wrong with M78 and NGC 1333. Hell, even I got one with 1333 last fall and Charlie got well deserved one the other day with his version. The past couple weeks or so have also had quite a few unique targets that I've actually never seen before, many of them galaxies. There are also a few images that have slipped through the cracks that do pose questions, but this isn't my monkey and certainly not my circus. Since the crew change a couple months back, IOTD seems to have some higher quality images and I'm fairly content with it. Claiming images are 'cherry picked' is just hilarious. Threads just like yours pop up once a month, someone has a complaint about IOTD. Had you opened up this thread with a much more conservative approach, it might have had better reception. Certainly not bashing the folks that actively run the system. That's just my 2 cents.
|
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.
We should consider using the automatic re-submission for the Top Pick level as well. This has nothing to do with activity, but more do do with giving images a fair shake. That is to say, if the first half of Reviewers do not like an image, perhaps the second will half will(or maybe a combination of both). Another +1 for this one. I'm kinda surprised it hasn't been implemented yet.
|
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.
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
We should consider using the automatic re-submission for the Top Pick level as well. This has nothing to do with activity, but more do do with giving images a fair shake. That is to say, if the first half of Reviewers do not like an image, perhaps the second will half will(or maybe a combination of both).
+1 +1 as well
|
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.
Steeve Body:
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
We should consider using the automatic re-submission for the Top Pick level as well. This has nothing to do with activity, but more do do with giving images a fair shake. That is to say, if the first half of Reviewers do not like an image, perhaps the second will half will(or maybe a combination of both).
+1
+1 as well +1 for me too
|
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:
If I ever get another IOTD, I want it to be against the very best possible competition. Otherwise, it's just a participation trophy. I'm not really into participation trophies. Nor am I into recriminations against the Almighty because life isn't fair. I think I made it very clear that the IOTD would still be against the best images.....if that was not clear I will make it clear again. Nothing would stop the current best images from being IOTDs. Edit: You are rightly proud of your Bortle 8 IOTD. But why did you then invest in a remote scope in NM? Isn't that a tacit acknowledgment that your Bortle 8 site limits you? I recall you saying as much in a thread about remote imaging. The images you (and others) take from New Mexico and Chile should absolutely be competing at the highest levels. But there also should be a way to create recognition or example images that people with less access can aspire to. That is where the idea of categories at lower levels comes in. There would be no dilution of quality at the IOTD level.
|
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 sure hope they are not spending hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get IotD, haha. Probably not to get into IOTD - that would make no sense. But having spent that, they would be understandably resistant to any changes that they see as reducing their chances of an IOTD. And to be perfectly honest, those type of images should certainly be overrepresented at the highest levels - because equipment DOES matter and location does matter.
|
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.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I acknowledge that some members here are dissatisfied with the current system. That's perfectly valid. I'm also curious about how many people are actually content with it? I think it is important to remember that our individual solutions might not necessarily be the right solutions or serve the entire community the way we think they might do so, no matter how convinced we might be. I won’t repeat what SemiPro said but indeed this requires careful consideration, trial and error, testing and a lot of time. From my humble perspective the system has worked quite well for me personally, this of course does not make it right or perfect, a lot more refinement could be implemented for the greater good of the community but I wanted to offer some context to my perspective for the sake of making this discussion a little more nuanced, adding some positives to what the IOTD process has done to my journey here on Astrobin. I've been doing astrophotography since mid 2021. Living in Melbourne, Australia, I face significant challenges like frequent cloudy skies, moderate seeing conditions, and severe light pollution (Bortle 6/7). Despite a modest setup (that is compared to a CDK observatory in Chile), I choose to focus on what I can achieve rather than what I lack. So I mostly do narrowband imaging, selecting targets that suit my field of view, plan for target that are in high altitude positions, dedicate extensive hours to integration, experimenting with color palettes and processing techniques and more recently I spend a lot of time to time collaborating with others. I've spent thousands of hours refining my processing skills and learning and I will spends 1000s more hours doing so… As my skills in capturing and processing images have evolved, I've started to receive some recognition from my peers and accolades from the Astrobin staff in the form of TPN, TP and IOTDs. Jeffbaxx mentioned he earns about three IOTDs per year with his 1 meter telescope under pristine skies and incredible experience. Interestingly so far I've managed a similar average from my light polluted backyard in Melbourne. Whether or not you appreciate my work , I believe this indicates that the system does not necessarily sideline enthusiasts like myself and that we all have a genuine shot at getting our spot in the sun once in a while. Keep on making great images folks  Steeve
|
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.
Wow, some pretty harsh dialog here! As a non-participant in the IOTD, I have to say that I enjoy seeing others' images show up on the front page. I find that most all of the images are very nice, and therefore worthy in some aspect of the art. Yes, even if there is some graininess or some other imperfection. I also like the fact that some come from people who use multi-meter professional-grade optics and others from 50mm aperature optics. There is something to be said about the challenge of the capture and not just the processing. Because this is an art (please lets not get into that discussion here!), a standard of "quality" from one person's perspective is not really necessary, nor necessarily welcome. Some prefer the clarity and technical perfection of an Ansell Adams photo, yet others will prefer a low-light gainy exposure of a Paris alleyway on a rainy evening. Astrophotography as a sub genre of photography suffers one of the worst fates possible in photography. Our subjects of interest almost never will change and no other perspective (geometric), except for scale, can ever be achieved. No doubt, a major reason that almost all astrophotographers jumped on the narrow-band bandwagon after Hubble showed the world that alternative colors can be had with the data we collect. In any case, if graininess of noise is to be criticized, then that is one of the few variables open to us taken away! In any case, I have seen people criticized for having too much noise in their images and then others criticized for not having enough. Some are criticized for not having "an acceptable" amount of residual background in a deep sky galaxy image! As if deep clear space has some sort of visible background!
What is clear is that the community aesthetic does have weight in these sorts of contests. And that this changes over time. So, yes, some great images will get ignored. Oh well! I worry about people who stress about that. And they are not necessarily the ones who bean count the number of IOTDs they or others have accumulated, though I wonder about those people as well! Unless you are making money with this venture….
I chose not to participate in IOTD because early on (when I did not know I could opt out) I began to feel a pressure toward a certain processing "ethic" for want of a better word. The pressure came by the slightest of actions, through comments, likes and like percentages, and yes, recognition by IOTD nods at various levels. As a scientist, I am taught to be critical, including self critical of data I generate. This extends to the art I produce for myself and choose to post here. While others may not like what I produce, that is ok, I do so for my own satisfaction. Yet I still do welcome the comments I get from the few I choose to have relationships here on AB. I value those much more than any competition. The other thing regarding the criticism of others' work here is we need to consider that many who practice here are no longer young kids. I know that my eyes no longer perform as they used to. It is clear that for some here, their ability to see properly greatly affects their ability to process to the liking of others tastes. And they may well not realize it. If what they see is a winner, then to me, its a winner.
Again, even though I choose not to participate in IOTD, I still like seeing those images posted. Perhaps in a way to be more eclectic in what shows up on the front page of AB each time they put up a new one, there might be a rotating number of specific categories, categories like used in the Oscars!? If this is not already done by those who run IOTD, it might be a way to spread the love.
Alan Brunelle
|
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.
Steeve Body:
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
We should consider using the automatic re-submission for the Top Pick level as well. This has nothing to do with activity, but more do do with giving images a fair shake. That is to say, if the first half of Reviewers do not like an image, perhaps the second will half will(or maybe a combination of both).
+1
+1 as well
+1 for me too
+1 as well
|
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.
We should consider using the automatic re-submission for the Top Pick level as well. This has nothing to do with activity, but more do do with giving images a fair shake. That is to say, if the first half of Reviewers do not like an image, perhaps the second will half will(or maybe a combination of both).
This system already exists on the Top Pick Nomination level. It is very rare for an image to reach the 80% of views on the first submission, and all of my "failed" images always get resubmitted multiple times. In that sense, every Submitter has had a chance to view the image. It had every possible opportunity to get votes and did not do so. Before I might have been able to reason that the Submitters who got my image just had different tastes and perhaps the other half would of liked it. Now that is no longer the case, and I think TPN's are more legitimate because of that.
Additionally, some of my TPN's would not be TPN's if it was not resubmitted one or two times. I have to say its massively more fair to everyone this way.
Therefore we should apply this system to Top Picks as well. The automatic resubmission for the Submitters' stage was implemented because Submitter have lots of images to look at, and it was likely that images submitted at an unfortunate time didn't get a chance to be seen. I didn't do the same for the Reviewers' stage at the same time because my assumption was that with the Reviewers' queue being smaller, and with images sitting there for 5 days, they'd all get a chance. At some point I will verify this assumption by beginning to record Reviewer views as well. The way I envision this is is if you don't get the required votes from the first half of Reviewers, then it goes to the second half, and then it just exits the system if it did not get the required votes. No need to keep track views and keep resubmitting over and over. This is almost the same thing as doubling the size of the Reviewer's team, and it would upset the balance of things too much, in relation to the other parameters of the process. I think that a resubmission should happen if not enough Reviewers viewed and image, but not if not enough Reviewers voted for an image.
|
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 automatic resubmission for the Submitters' stage was implemented because Submitter have lots of images to look at, and it was likely that images submitted at an unfortunate time didn't get a chance to be seen.
I didn't do the same for the Reviewers' stage at the same time because my assumption was that with the Reviewers' queue being smaller, and with images sitting there for 5 days, they'd all get a chance.
At some point I will verify this assumption by beginning to record Reviewer views as well. That was the original intent yes, but I think a positive unintended consequence is exactly what I mentioned, where an image is effectively getting every possible chance to get the votes required by having each batch of Submitters look at it. I would be curious to hear from anyone who has had their image fail to get the required 3 TPN votes and get bounced out of the IotD process without auto re-submission. In my experience, this has never happened with my images. They either get the required 3 votes the first time, they take one or two re-submissions to get the 3 votes, or after spending six days in the queue (aka, being submitted three times total) they exit the system without getting the votes. Others that I know have the same experience. Salvatore Iovene:
This is almost the same thing as doubling the size of the Reviewer's team, and it would upset the balance of things too much, in relation to the other parameters of the process. I think that a resubmission should happen if not enough Reviewers viewed and image, but not if not enough Reviewers voted for an image. By this logic, we have already artificially doubled and/or tripled the amount of Submitters due to the almost guaranteed auto re-submission of one or two times. That was not the intent, but it certainly is the reality, and I think it is working massively in our favour. My line of thinking is this; The reason why we only assign an image to half of either Submitters or Reviewers is because we want to manage the workload. A negative consequence of this is of course the introduction of randomness. By sheer luck, you could be assigned the least 10 active Reviewers. Pre activity requirements, we both know how low that activity was. I do have to ask if its fair for an image to have a chance of being stuck with the 10 lowest active Reviewers. Conversely, some images might win the lottery by getting the six or so Reviewers who are super active. The randomness is not constrained to just activity though. How your image does invariably is going to depend a lot on who it gets assigned to. Who gets randomly assigned an image can make or break its chances for a Top Pick, which is not a reality that exists for either TPNs (due to how auto-resubmission works on a practical level) and IotDs (due to all Judges being able to see all eligible images). If we want the IotD process to be as objective as possible, then leaving things to chance like this is not desirable. This randomness is incredibly magnified on the Reviewer stage because there are so few of them. These negative aspects can be completely eliminated by auto-resubmission. We still get the benefits of a split workload, and we can eliminate all the negatives that are associated with that. We would also avoid having to find new Reviewers, because now you would getting full use out of all of them for any given image if needed. Salvatore Iovene:
I think that a resubmission should happen if not enough Reviewers viewed and image, but not if not enough Reviewers voted for an image. Fair enough, but even though re-submission right now is based on views on a technical level, practically speaking it is based on votes as I and others can attest to based on our experiences. However I do not think that is a bad thing. Either way, how you implement it would be up to you, but I really think it would be a huge positive to the IotD process, and hopefully one that does not take too much time away from your bigger projects!
|
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.
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.
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
What is getting clearer and clearer : You don't understand what good images are.
We all agree the system can improove. There will never be a perfect human based system. But this one is not the worst, and IS a good start...
Continuing to attack me, when I'm keeping the conversation focused on the process and engaging with others that similarly would like to see it improve, only diminishes the points you attempt to make.
The old adage of attack the post, not the poster is fitting here. Please refrain from coming after me with childish quips about my personal images. This isn't about me, and I've repeatedly had to say this to you.
Stop this. You will not fool me. When you say that judges are not experts and when you assume that a random process would do better you are in a very attacking behaviour. At least you don't respect some of the best experts of what your are trying to learn.
We judges give our time and experience for the community. And we do it faithfully.
Go imaging please, this is turning ridiculous.
Experts? in what? They have a PHDs in Pixinsight?  )
It's just some guys looking at pictures and grading them, and it's biased. Can I verify the credentials of the experts? Ridiculous if you ask me.
Randomisation is used frequently to eliminate bias in all areas of science.
Of course it’s biased. So what? Think of just about any competition with a judging panel. Diving, boxing, US Supreme Court, photographic competitions. How often is the judging panel unanimous? Just accept it and move on.
|
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.
