14.24
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Very infrequently, when there have been questions about the veracity of a final image, Sal has appointed a few well known astrophotographers (typically judges) to take a closer look. In these cases, they have required raw masters from the imager, but the data was never made public. This happened, as I recall, when people first started using AI tools. That seems a better approach than requiring everyone participating in the IOTD process to make raw data public which will open the door to all kinds of accusations of cheating and plagiarism, some of which I expect will be quite legitimate.
|
8.34
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
I agree with the majority (and Salvatore) on this. A few points: 1) Parts of the posts clearly did violate the terms so Salvatore was entirely correct closing the topic. 2) Everyone who submits to TP/IOTD regularly will disagree with the evaluators from time to time on one image or the other. But this works in both directions (see #3 below). 3) I have had images that I thought deserved better ratings than they got (and I suspect everyone has) BUT I have also had images that got better ratings than I expected. Different imagers have different standards and different aspects of an image that they think are important. That is part of every ratings system - and not just for astro-images. Maybe there is a way to improve the system, but not by much and I suspect not w/o increasing the already heavy workload on the ratings folks. |
19.90
...
·
·
6
likes
|
|---|
I would never make my raw data freely available to the public, especially to participate in a "for fun" process like IOTD. I go to great energy, time, and expense to collect my data. If making raw data available to the public were a requirement for participation or eligibility for IOTD, I would never participate again. IOTD is all for fun. We cannot take it too seriously. Some excellent images make it and some very poor images make it. That is my opinion. What matters to me as a good image, is not necessarily the same as what the judges think or what the public thinks. Thats not a problem. No one requires participation with the IOTD feature of astrobin. I have been a critic of the process as well as a proponent. As long as feedback is welcome I shall provide it, and whether its taken or not as an initiation of change does not matter to me. I submit my images, and accept the results. If the rules change it might be for the better or the worse, and yes they change. Every individual will need to decide if the current rules or process are acceptable and if they are not, they can provide feedback or not participate. But we should be polite in the process. |
7.19
...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
Of course I was angry about the rejection of my image, otherwise I would not have started the discussion. On the other hand I learned that I should completely stay away from IOTD with such results. I think I will continue publishing here, but my expectations getting one of the awards with my images is much lower now. I understand, that not everyone has the same taste regarding astrophotography. I think your image was terrible for what its worth but the conversation is pretty funny... I have never seen such a fuss in any photography discipline over picking photos to showcase on a website. It is embarrassing. |
7.22
...
·
|
|---|
Arun knows exactly what I'm talking about; he was present in the AI discussion thread I suggest everyone reads through it https://www.astrobin.com/forum/c/astrophotography/deep-sky-processing-techniques/any-secret-nr-methods-topaz-denoise-what-is-your-method/? specifically Charles Hagen's post in page 4, with the animations sneak peak, to get people interested; he talks about Bray Falls' Goblet of Fire and the M31 OIII arc, which are IOTDs and wowed the Astrobin community and I think Bray even published scientific papers about one or both of them. Charles says: "I, and I believe many others, would not consider these to be legitimate observations. " I'll leave it at that, I trust Salvatore might be able to reinforce things, somehow and I maybe shouldn't take IOTD and all this corruption so seriously, at least for now, because it gets in my nerves, thanks all |
0.90
...
·
|
|---|
I think the IOTD should just be scrapped, as it seems to cause more problems than anything else, there are more and more people posting negative comments about it and it will ruin the forum. Anything that humans have to choose between will always have bias, there is no getting away from that and it will never change, and choosing between Astro phots as to pick the best one is no different and will always be subjective and cause issues with people who did not get picked. I personally have never submitted an image and probably never will. it would be better if the images were submitted with no information at all to the judges, so that can pick one blind, so to speak without having any information on equipment, where it was taken, and who it was taken by, but this would be nigh on impossible to achieve, and so would not be the answer. The other option would be to have a different membership for people that wanted to be included and able to submit to the IOTD, again just an idea off the top of my head. Its such a shame that there are more and more posts with people unhappy in the judges decision, but as I have said, they will always be bias decisions and that’s life. |
7.14
...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Personally, I find most IOTDs excellent and impressive, some certainly more than others. But on balance they represent the pinnacle of current astroimaging— and in so doing, set a global standard for all of us. As a former reviewer, I believed that the selection process was reasonable, and that everyone involved in it was doing their best to be fair. Main drawback, of course, is that it depends on humans, who have varying standards of taste and perfection. But then, so does almost everything else in life. CS, Bob |
26.84
...
·
·
16
likes
|
|---|
Salvatore Iovene: Salvatore, I just want to applaud your efforts to create a welcoming and helpful culture on AB without resorting to heavy handed moderation. Your approach has paid off in creating a space for open discussions where for the most part, the focus is on astro-imaging and how to get better results. I left Cloudy Nights many years ago simply because of their absolutely horrible moderators and heavy handed application of their TOS policy to stifle legitimate technical discussions. I never want to return to that kind of culture. I recognize that it's not always an easy job and that there are times when you have to shut down a thread. I've moderated a site and I know that it can be thankless so I want to tell you how much I appreciate the way that you've managed this site. You get an A+ in my book. John |
 ...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
Thank you @John!
|
4.98
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Thanks for your answer, Steveri. But I did not ask you. Who did you ask? It appeared to be a general forum question. |
3.82
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Why ? Maybe because the user has been borderline trolling recently. IMO he should close this one as well. |
...
·
|
|---|
Agreed with @Eric Gagne. There is no need for further responses here as the matter has been thoroughly clarified. Additional replies will just push this topic to the top of the recent topics for people who are members of the AstroBin Platform Open Discussion group, and most would not be interested in this topic anymore by now. Thanks to all who participated! |
