11.51
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Ruediger: I don't think I missed the point--at least not entirely. I actually linked to two guys who shoot from their back yards in Bortle 8s, no less, and yet still win IOTDs. But John's point that "Own Remote Observatory" is 9X as likely to win as "Back Yard" is well taken. I totally agree about buying data--that is, if what IOTD is rewarding is amateur astrophotography (which is not totally clear). I'm not sure I agree about remote hosting, though. Setting up separate categories for that is fraught with difficulty. There are those who, as you say, ship their equipment to a remote site and have people there to set it up and troubleshoot it. But not all remote sites are like that at all, which just shows how difficult it would be to start carving out categories and, as Salvatore points out, wouldn't do much to quell the complaints. |
4.21
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Richard Rice: Then the competition becomes a popularity contest. The winners will be the ones with the most followers. Just look at the # of likes on images of similar quality, but one has 300 followers and one 20. I for one don't want IOTD become a competition between youtubers. |
10.79
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
|
Call it competition or popularity contest, popularity is what people want to have. I feel the arguments pro IOTD as a motor for excellence are just used as an argument to keep the IOTD in the hope to reach the "throne" or put another star on one's shoulder. The psychology of this whole show seems pretty transparent to me. Whenever quantities are introduced to measure the work of someone, it acts as an judgement and then the question arises judgement by what standards. Sports competitions are often quoted here as an example but seriously, what is their purpose? Sports competitions are there for those who want to compete with others and be better than others in their sports. Besides it generates income for the organizers as it attracts sponsors... sounds familiar with the first post of this thread. Astrophotography is a hobby for most and contains a lot of art. Art isn't a subject for competition. Art is supposed to be a communication between two people, the author and the viewer and not viewers or judges, determining what's good art and what's not so good. The most valuable mechanism is the comments section on an image and nothing else. A final note about driving excellence in the sense that it helps to get better: the best tool is the global stream in AB as you see all the work that's uploaded and you can pick those images that represent the style and quality that you would like to achieve. I concur with @Ruediger that AstroBin was a cozier place a few years ago in the sense that the competition aspect is way too dominant nowadays on this platform. |
10.10
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
|
Of the comments I have read above, I agree with @Ruediger the most. I do find the IOTD very much a competition and there is no avoiding the fact that popularity (number of followers/followed) play a large role in the competition. I personally, have no interest in a competition, what I like to have is views and feedback. Personally I would opt out of the competition aspect, except this would also require me to also opt out of one of the sources of feedback that I crave. I really like the badges that are awarded - much moreso than the actual IOTD selection which I often find myself disagreeing with. Some people reserve their "likes" for images of the best quality, while some (including myself) may press "like" for a number of other reasons - a new object or framing of an object, to indicate that I believe someone I follow is improving, a fantastic text interpretation of what the image is about or how it was processed / acquired (as suggested by @Mike Cranfield . Combining all these and more factors into a simple "like" or "not like" decision is also very difficult, espectially when you are recieving "number of likes" as an indication of the quality of your image. Because we are almost universally nice encouraging people, we tend to only give praise in our comments. As such, the "number of comments" becomes something akin to "super-likes". At the same time, what I crave the most is not only praise for a successful image, but what DID you like about it, and perhaps what could be further improved. My suggested solution is to have the "like" button include a submenu - so that when I click "like" on an image a checklist comes out that requires me to check categories - such as "framing", "processing", "data aquisition", "detail", "colour", "improvement in portfolio", new object, "uniqueness", technical write-up, and even a "constructive feedback" comment option. This would help with my understanding of what someone liked (or even didn't like so much) about an image I posted. It would also provide me the ability to express exactly what I liked about an image, in a way that doesn't "attach" a comment necessarily visible to the image itself. This would take additional time to "like" an image, but not that much more. This would also discourage giving "likes" out like candy. Categorization of badges would naturally follow from from this method, you would have many more badges to give out, and provide much more feedback across the board. There could even be a IOTD for each category, that one could scroll through, in addition to an overall IOTD. I recognize that this idea isn't fully formulated, but I think it is a method of getting more feedback of the images we post. |
|
11.51
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Just to bring down the hammer on this dead horse one more time: I haven't seen any compelling arguments here for changing the IOTD process. Additional categories are not likely to make anyone happy. They would create an administrative nightmare: Who is judging and how? What are the exact criteria? How do you deter, discover, and punish fraud (e.g., someone submitting a remote image to a back-yard category)? How do all these winners get presented? Just the mechanics of it seems untenable and would require at least one person to be a full-time administrator. In the end, it would be an unholy amount of work and would create far more complaints than there are now. I'd rather see the limited resources Salvatore has available spent on functional and performative improvements. But that's just me. The fairness argument also falls flat for me. Life isn't fair. Sure, some people have bigger sticks than others. But those longer sticks may be derived from a lifetime of work. Few can achieve excellence in any meaningful field of endeavor without a serious investment of time and treasure. According to the stats above, those with the disadvantage of urban or suburban location break through more than 10% of the time on a per-image basis. Those are pretty good odds, all things considered. And those breakthroughs represent a real achievement. Merely having gear at a remote location doesn't guarantee excellence. It takes a lot more than that. Of course, going remote is not for everyone--nor should it be. And not all remote sites are equal in terms of quality and service levels. But perhaps the stat that's missing here is that those who do go remote have made a real commitment to this avocation in more ways than just that. The encouragement argument doesn't do it for me either. It's simple enough to ask for feedback. Most people, however, who do manage to reach the top of their professions do so with a combination of solitary struggle and professional help. Autodidacts are rare. And in today's world, with the internet, YouTube, and private instruction from people like Ron Brecher and Shawn Neilsen, there are many ways to learn and improve. Again, the only change I would make would be to exclude professionally acquired data. But as others have pointed out, that may not be practical from a business standpoint. So I'm fine with it the way it is. But as I've said, it's not my decision. Finally, while I have said that IOTD is not just a competition, it is THE competition in amateur astrophotography, it's not healthy to place a lot of emphasis on it--or other things like badges and likes. It's a miracle that any of us can do this at all. In my mind, just about every image has value and is worthy of admiration. It's my hope that the real value of what we're doing goes well past our own lifetimes and will serve as a reference for those who study the cosmos in future years, decades, centuries, and maybe even millennia. We really are living in a Golden Age for amateur astronomy. |
18.93
#...
·
·
10
likes
|
|---|
|
If this is really your opinion, then I understand why this IOTD (rewarding system) became so toxic and why I feel AB has lost its mantra to be a save harbor for back yard guys. All your arguments bring me back to my initial statement: Stop it! Because it is not possible to make it fair for many reasons. I think, it is time for me to detox from AB. This goes in a completely wrong way for me and I feel I am not in the right place anymore. |
|
10.79
#...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
Timothy Martin: And that's the argument for holding on to a system with "positive" feedback, amplifying the gradient? Sounds completely detrimental to what I'd expect AB to be. Shutdown IOTD +1 I agree with @Ruediger. Maybe time to think about turning the back on AB. Björn |
|
11.51
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Ruediger: You have to do what's right for you, but I think you're overreacting. Just post your pics and ignore the IOTD. Or not. It's obviously your choice. I think what's really going on here is that with the pandemic, many more people are doing this and--back yard or not--they're getting really good at it. Change is hard. |
|
18.93
#...
·
·
10
likes
|
|---|
Timothy Martin:Ruediger: For sure I will do that - together with many others. But you ignore, that I am obviously not the only one who has this perception - vice versa. At least if I look on the likes on the comments and answers. Also the discussion I daily have with many members here. The dissatisfaction is huge and some have already retreated for that reason and many will follow. |
8.04
#...
·
|
|---|
Ruediger: Hello Ruediger, where are all the dissatisfied members? Why dont they post their opinion here? 700+ members have already visited the thread after just two days. But only a handful exchanged arguments and the #likes is not overwhelming on either side. Cheers, John |
|
18.93
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Ruediger: Well I see 7 for stopping it on my first post. More than any other. But your are right in saying this is not representative. We are also 5 local APs. 3 of them resigned frustrated silently already. Also talked to some very active AB users here. Also there are some dedicated discussions in comments section of images. But I agree: Many just ignore it. This is like in all businesses. 99% of the customers quit silently. Also I see, that many do not want to join in, because they say: "Nothing will change anyway". I am a person who has an clear opinion and is also articulating it. But you are also right: If all these guys who had a clear opinion when you talk one on one, but now stay silent, than it is a petty. This is like all the people who complain about the government, but when you ask: Have you been voting? They say "no!". And a third time you are right: it is not my business to talk for others. This was an error. And maybe I am completely wrong and I am the only one. But this will not change my opinion. I think I have shared my arguments and expressed my opinion. Let's see ... CS Rüdiger |
|
8.04
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Hello Ruediger, Salvatore has started this thread because (i believe) individuals have complained to him about the IOTD process. I truly believe that he is open to changes. After a while he will evaluate this thread and if not more AB users contribute, then the conclusion will be that only a negligible number of users is dissatisfied with the current IOTD process. Those who only post in PMs should know that their voice is only heard if they post in _this_ thread (otherwise this topic is off tbe table for years to come). It is an opportunity ... Cheers, John |
|
18.93
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Hello Ruediger, Hello John, you are 100% right. As I said: It is like elections. Almost all have an opinions, but only a small fraction use the chance. Let's stay AP and AB friends and see what will come... Cheers Rüdiger |
 #...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Hey all! Thank you for participating to the discussion (both the parties that shared my opinions, and the ones that do not). As you surely guessed, I sat on this thread for a little bit to see what you guys would talk about, and then weigh in with my opinions after a while. I appreciate everyone's contribution, and I try my best to maximize user satisfaction. Of course this is not possible for 100% of you, and I accept that. Let me address some of the points tou have raised. A. Proposal to kill the IOTD/TP This is simply unrealistic, I'm sorry but it's not going to happen. There are thousands of astrophotographers who willingly submit images to the IOTD/TP every year. I completely disagree that the IOTD/TP is toxic, and I didn't see any evidence that it is. The IOTD/TP is great value for the community at a large because it offers a way to see exceptional images. It's great value for the external community of non-astrophotographers, because the images are shared on other social media sites, and lots of people re-share. It's great value for the astrophotographers who achieve IOTD because many (most?) find it a significant accomplishment. I just saw the list of speakers of CEDIC 24, and I notice that many of them mentioned winning AstroBin IOTD in their bio. Does the IOTD/TP promote unrealistic standards? No, I don't think so. You only need to look at how many IOTDs are achieved with modest equipment. In any case, while I won't (obviously) just kill the IOTD/TP, there are two things that I can do, if @Ruediger and others who think like him find these a good idea:
The idea would be that the contests are only a tool to drive feedback: the entire voting mechanism would be based on providing constructive feedback. Users will upvote/downvote feedback according to how much it's constructive and useful, and these votes will buy "voting credits" for the user who wrote that feedback. Please don't quote me on the above, it's just the shadow of an idea, I don't have it yet clear in my mind. If these contests are better than the IOTD/TP, people might stop posting there, and then we will know how "bad" the IOTD/TP is. By the way, I'm sorry but after refining the IOTD/TP process for almost 10 years, I am confident that is currently the best process out there to highlight exceptional astrophotographs and give them visibility in the community. B. Categories This is already explained in the FAQ, and @Timothy Martin did an excellent job arguing why splitting the IOTD/TP in categories won't do it any good, so I don't think I need to comment further. C. Me singing the song that "IOTD/TP is not a competition" Again going back to what @Timothy Martin wrote, yes, mea culpa on this. The truth is, I don't want it to be a competition, but yes, it is perceived as such, it's got trophy icons and medals and badges, and images "compete" for a certain number of limited spots. Once we have real competitions on AstroBin (see above), we will see what happens to the perception of the IOTD/TP and adapt. Perhaps rebrand it. D. Data sets purchasing This, again is a matter of where you draw the line. Some of you draw it at purchased data set. Some of you draw it at rented equipment. Some of you draw it at remote observatory. Some of you draw it at backyard images. Others might say that if you're traveling to the mountains, but image from the comfort of your home, you're "cheating". Others might say that if you're autoguiding instead of staring at the red crossed eyepiece until your eyes bleed, you're "cheating", and so on. In addition to that, I personally believe that processing an image is one of the most crucial aspects of astrophotography, and the one most likely to "make or break" a good astrophotograph. I hope I won't offend anyone by saying that I've seen some images make a complete butchery of data from a CDK24 due to inadequate processing skills. Therefore, for the IOTD/TP, I prefer not to draw the line at all. In fact, there is only one line that I see, that could be the uncontested measure to divide lightweight from heavyweight: cost of equipment. If we had IOTD/TP categories by cost of equipment (say $0-$2,500, $2,501-$10,000, and $10,000+) that would probably be the only one that makes sense. But then... what do you factor into cost? If I moved to Namibia, I could take better images with $1,000 in equipment, than somebody in Bortle 9 with $20,000. These are murky waters, and for every problem you fix, 3 more pop up. And let's not forget that I probably am the person who has thought about the IOTD/TP and how to improve it the most in the world. E. Beginners Having a beginners' corner on AstroBin is in fact a great idea, but it has nothing to do with the IOTD/TP. This is not about dispensing awards to everybody: it's about highlighting excellent images. There are a lot of non-excellent images, and highlighting some would be a disservice to others. F. Likes and popularity @David Payne said "I do find the IOTD very much a competition and there is no avoiding the fact that popularity (number of followers/followed) play a large role in the competition". This is not true for the IOTD/TP, and please read how the process works to learn what measures are taken to prevent biases (anonymization of image, assignment to random subset of staff members, limited number of votes) G. Sponsors I've said this in the topmost post, but I still read somebody insinuating that remote hosting facilities are somehow favorited because when an image is awarded it's publicity to them. So, here's the facts: 1. Only 4% of AstroBin's revenue comes from remote hosting facilities sponsoring AstroBin: as I said, I value community satisfaction in primis 2. There is no practical way of me influencing the process, the staff works independently 3. They'd get publicity anyway, as well as the telescope and camera makers, because the information is there in the technical card anyway 4. Looking at the IOTD/TP stats, data downloaded from remote hosting facilities, or acquired by renting time on equipment, accounts for only 5% of the submissions and 4% of the awards, which means it's even underrepresented. What's overrepresented is data from "own remote observatory". Is it really surprising that people who invested in a remote observatory on average make better astrophotography? H. AstroBin a "safe harbor for backyard guys" AstroBin has never claimed to be that, not that I remember. In fact, I've always taken the more inclusive approach. AstroBin has not changed in that respect since it started out in 2011. In fact, it's astrophotography that has changed, and AstroBin reflects that for obvious reasons. @JohnHen wrote: "With the current trend of users just purchasing data from large scopes in exotic places (and receiving the few AB awards; just check today's IOTD)". I'm sorry John, but this is just anectodal. The very next IOTD to the one you mention was acquired with very average equipment (ZWO camera, a DSLR lens, a NEQ6). It's a phenomental image and it got IOTD. The IOTD/TP process works, and it awards excellence. I. Complaints As I mentioned, I started this thread because every now and again I get complaints about the IOTD/TP. Let's put them into context. 1. The majority of them are "my image is great, why is it not IOTD" or "this image is bad, why is it IOTD". This is covered in the IOTD FAQ. 2. Some of them are the things expressed here: lack of categories. However, as explained perfectly by Tim, and also in the IOTD FAQ, there are very good reasons why there are no categories 3. Simple failure to understand the process (this is understandable because it's complex), and I do my best to explain it to them in simpler terms I get perhaps 4-5 such complaints a year. I get many more compliments for how well AstroBin runs, how comprehensive a platform it is, and what a great community this is. Especially the forum, that lately has picked up even more steam. And let's not forget that we're a small bunch here, but AstroBin reaches over 40k people on Instagram monthly, and that's simply good for astrophotography. Conclusion (so far) I say "so far" so it doesn't look like I'm having the proverbial last word and ignoring your follow-ups (btw, sorry if I missed some points that you raised, please let me know if you'd like me to address something I missed). The IOTD/TP will continue to evolve, but it's not going away, nor is it going to be split in categories. Next year, if all goes according to plans, I will work on the Community Contests which will provide spaces to do all the things that the IOTD/TP does not offer. We will see how the perception of the IOTD/TP will be altered, if at all, in response from "internal competition". Obviously there are some people who dislike several things, like competitions, social aspects of the site, gamification, and some even the fact that AstroBin makes money. However, the platform evolved in response to the wishes of the community, and AstroBin is what most of you want. Users are very satisfied of AstroBin. The last time I run a survey (2022), 82% of you voted that on a scale from 0 to 10, you'd be 9 or 10 likely to recommend AstroBin. Only 3% responded with 6 or less. This leads to a NetPromoter Score of 79, which is fantastic  Do keep up the discussion if you want: this is after all how ideas are born! Thank you all for participating and sorry if I made any typos, it was a long post and it's late in the evening! |
11.64
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Thanks to Salvatore. I watched this thread since the beginning. My key observational result is that there are far fewer people participating in this thread, comparing to similar threads in the past many years. There are many posts in this thread, but only from a small group of people. The same small number of names just keep repeating. Most people on Astrobin have moved on and no longer feel the bitterness about IOTD (or no longer care). You can read it the other ways, but from my point of view, I think this is a good sign. I think this means IOTD is really no longer a competition for many people, and has become healthier over the years. |
11.35
#...
·
·
6
likes
|
|---|
Wei-Hao Wang: I tend to agree with you mostly @Wei-Hao Wang but I would quickly add that there is, a lack of participation in the forum in the last few months and it would be foolish to judge member feelings about this topic by the lack of written responses. I also agree that members no longer care about IOTD as much as previously, but I think the reason is because they have given up thinking it will ever change. I am certain having talked with many former presenters, submitters and even judges that the awards system is not healthy and that the only small number of names that repeat are the names of the people winning the awards. CS's scott |
|
10.79
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
| @Salvatore Iovene, thank you for coming back into the thread. I think you once mentioned that AB has about 40k users. If your expectation was to have a representative reply to your original post, it would have been unmanageable. Even if just 0,2% of AB users had participated in the thread, that would have been about 100 people writing. I'd actually expected to see a survey of some sort which would also reach people that don't write in forums for many reasons. A key aspect for me staying on AB was that there are not other platforms that have two distinct features: a: object database (e.g., I can look for an image of a specific object) b: equipment database (I can search for specific gear) In other words, the treatment of the metadata is unique which any other image hosters does not provide. Björn PS: I agree with @wsg that forum participation seems to have slowed down somewhat. I find it interesting that most IOTD winner names are also hardly found in the forums. |
#...
·
|
|---|
Wei-Hao Wang: would quickly add that there is, a lack of participation in the forum in the last few months and it would be foolish to judge member feelings about this topic by the lack of written responses. Björn: Forum participation on AstroBin has been growing considerably since 2020, and it's even better now that individual equipment items have their own dedicated forums that notify users of that equipment. I find that AstroBin forums currently are a great place to get help on technical issues regarding equipment and astrophotography in general. The total post volume is not as large as on CN, tho. However, this forum ("AstroBin Platform Open Discussions") is part of a public group and is not shown on the frontpage by default. Only people in the group can see it. only small number of names that repeat are the names of the people winning the awards. In the past 365 days there have been: 196 distinct IOTD winners 517 distinct Top Pick winners 1010 distinct Top Pick Nomination winners. So yeah, @wsg, I would say that saying that "only a small number of names win the awards" is wildly incorrect. Btw, the numbers above are publicly available, you can click on the "chart" icon on the IOTD golden ribbon. Björn: Unfortunately AstroBin does not these many active users :-) |
|
10.79
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
Salvatore Iovene: So you're telling us that you have a serious question about a central AB mechanism but place it in a group forum which only group members see on the landing page, expecting that a significant number of AB users responds to it, "hopefully" leading to a representative opinion on the IOTD process? |
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I don’t expect nor want a significant amount of astrobin users to respond. It would be unmanageable. It’s in this group because the people most likely to engage and care are here. Please see: https://welcome.astrobin.com/faq#astrobin-meta-forum |
|
10.10
#...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
Wei-Hao Wang: I am glad you are really happy Wei-Hao, you seem to get lots of feedback on your images - so I am not surprised that you feel that everything is tickety-boo. In this light, your comments are silly and pointless. What a stuck-up comment - bitterness! are you kidding? You do understand this is just a hobby, right - and doesn't really mean anything in the big-wide world. Don't get me wrong, here, I love Astrobin. However, you could scrap the entire IOTD process, because I don't get any benefit from it. I continue to submit my images to it, on the hope that maybe, on the off chance, I will get something back from it and it doesn't cost anything to do so. @Salvatore Iovene solicited for opinions, and then just defended the status quo by picking up quotes out of context? Please don't ask for comments or suggestions, if you are just going to randomly pick out quotes to rebut. What about the ENTIRETY of my suggestion - to have more badges, and categories for badges, so that the IOTD "judges" can provide feedback through to the astrophotographers - other then "under consideration" for a few days, followed by nothing/nada/zilch. It's not about the "single" IOTD used to promote Astrobin, it is for the images that didn't make the "zenith" - additional feedback here would be great - more badges or categories, or something like that would go a long way. All I said was that I am not interested in winning the IOTD non-competition, just in getting some feedback from the IOTD process. To date I have had extremely little feedback from the IOTD process, yet I continue to submit my images to the process only because it costs nothing, and therefore nothing to lose. Getting a badge generally means that the image will be up on the wall longer, get more views, and in turn, result in even more feedback. As the membership in Astrobin expands I think you might find providing more feedback and encouragement to individual contributors useful. The judges, I assume, are reviewing a lot of images, but most of this effort is being thrown away in the garbage if there is no feedback loop. You can either improve the IOTD process, or not. Whatever you do, at least you will not be reducing the value it has to me. No bitterness here, just the reality. I have learned my lession and won't be baited into providing any in the future. Maybe this is why people have moved on (or no longer care). Dave |
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi @David Payne, sorry for missing your suggestion regarding splitting the Likes in multiple categories. I did write, in my last post, something like "sorry if I missed anything, do let me know if I did and I will address it", so I don't know why you're getting all confrontational and accusing me of picking and choosing. Also, please note that I didn't open this topic so I would accept every suggestions. Everything I read so far, I read already years ago and there are good reasons why the status quo is the way it is. Reasons that are explained in the IOTD FAQ and here as well. I actually explained the reasons why opened this topic at the very top of the first post, and they are:
Suggestions are very welcome, and I lost count of the things I added to AstroBin over the course of the years thanks to user suggestions. However, remember that suggestions are suggestions, and I'm happy to explain why some of them will not be implemented. This is more than most companies do. Now on to your idea! You said: My suggested solution is to have the "like" button include a submenu - so that when I click "like" on an image a checklist comes out that requires me to check categories - such as "framing", "processing", "data aquisition", "detail", "colour", "improvement in portfolio", new object, "uniqueness", technical write-up, and even a "constructive feedback" comment option. This would help with my understanding of what someone liked (or even didn't like so much) about an image I posted. It would also provide me the ability to express exactly what I liked about an image, in a way that doesn't "attach" a comment necessarily visible to the image itself. This would take additional time to "like" an image, but not that much more. This would also discourage giving "likes" out like candy. I share your sentiment: I want more constructive feedback on AstroBin, I want to encourage people to have more technical dialog, and I want to give beginners more opportunities to learn and improve. At a first read, I found your idea very attractive. But after thinking about it for a few minutes, there's a problem with it, in my opinion. Back in the very early days (I guess only 2011 and 2012? Can't remember without checking the code history) AstroBin didn't have a Like button. Instead, it had a 5-star voting mechanism. Guess what? Naturally people hated getting only 1, or 2, or 3 stars. They did not solicit that feedback, that criticism, and it was not well-received. For that reason, I switched to a positive only Likes system. Having a dropdown menu so you can like individual features like you proposed (framing, processing, color, etc), while it's not as detrimental as a 5-star based system, might still leave some people offended because somebody liked the color but not the framing. There's the additional questions of "what do we do with the millions of likes already on AstroBin?" I find that this is a complication that would only have the effect of adding friction to liking an image, resulting in fewer likes, which results in less time on the front page activity stream, which results in user dissatisfaction. Having said that, I do agree, as mentioned, with the idea behind this: provide feedback. This is all inline with the custom community contests I have mentioned in another post above, and plan to begin work on it in 2024. As I said, I will strive to design these contests so that they are not popularity contests, but are driven as much as possible by feedback. To finish off, please don't attribute malice to things I say or do, in the future. I find it quite hurtful. Thank you! |
|
18.93
#...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
| I have just noticed, that the strongest supporters of the current IOTD process in this discussion, are remote imagers. Maybe a correlation … 🤔 |
#...
·
|
|---|
Ruediger: Have you considered the fact that if AstroBin's IOTD was split in Backyard and Remote astrophotography (by whatever definition of them) the remote images will get even more exposure, more IOTDs, and more TPs etc? If such a split were to happen, the two categories would be given even visibility, so now there would be a remote observatory IOTD every day instead of only 42% of the times. And yes, all this noise, and actually Backyard + Traveler still make up 56% of the IOTDs. |
2.11
#...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
| @David Payne : "............. I am glad you are really happy Wei-Hao, you seem to get lots of feedback on your images - so I am not surprised that you feel that everything is tickety-boo. In this light, your comments are silly and pointless. What a stuck-up comment - bitterness! are you kidding? You do understand this is just a hobby, right - and doesn't really mean anything in the big-wide world. .........." Hello @David Payne , you speak out of the heart of so many users. Most seem so scared by experienced users (like the one you mention) such that they don't even post their opinion here. Thank you so much. Hermi |
