IOTD and Why It Needs Improvement

11.99 Arun H #... · view views · 3 likes
I am one of the submitters, the first line in IOTD process. The process is far from being perfect, but: 1- it is free 2- it is based on democratic evaluations by a significant number of volunteer submitters, reviewers and judges every image goes through. This makes highly improbable (impossible is not of our world) for a great image to be missed. I suggest people who would like their outcry and idea to weight more to give some minutes of their lifes to the process being personally involved instead of limiting their action to coarse external criticism. That will certainly have a positive impact on IOTD process. 3- it is by far the one with best images around (APOD, AAPOD-2...) 4- anyways, it is constantly moving, looking for improvement 5- because it is AB interest in having a IOTD being the best it can be At the end of the process, the images who did not make it to TPN, TP, or IOTD are still on AB, published in its opening page, and all the community can enjoy their view. After all, as far as I know, being nominated TP or IOTD is not associated with any reward, prize or whatever, except personal satisfaction, and I echo what Jan Erik earlier said in the thread: if getting top picks and IOTD's are the driving factor for people then they really should re-consider things. My 2 cents CS I spent two years, mostly as a submitter. So I speak from the perspective of someone that has given his time to this community and tried to influence the process in many ways (and failed). I will tell you that it is easy for a great image to be missed - through no fault of the submitter or reviewer - but through many factors outside of the control of the submitters and reviewers as well as the imager. Some of these include: the much larger number of good images, the accident of when a particular image was submitted, the inherent advantage that some imagers have through access to dark and clear skies either through accident or through investment. The current situation is akin to combining men's and women's teams in sports or eliminating weight categories in wrestling - and then blaming the referees when women or those with lower body weight don't win. Or tell them that participation is voluntary after all, and if they didn't participate, it would make things easier for the referees. Or if they are in it to win badges or awards, they should rethink why they are in sports at all. I'm using here arguments that people have made in this thread. What I constantly find in any discussion of changes to the IOTD as it relates to having categories is very high resistance, typically from a very small number of people (relative to the total size of Astrobin). The implied and sometimes stated position taken is that such changes will dilute what they see as their own accomplishments and advantages. It is so everywhere - people who benefit from the status quo will always be resistant to change and the most vocal advocates against it. Edited ... Like

11.99

#...

· 3 likes

I am one of the submitters, the first line in IOTD process.
The process is far from being perfect, but:
1- it is free
2- it is based on democratic evaluations by a significant number of volunteer submitters, reviewers and judges every image goes through. This makes highly improbable (impossible is not of our world) for a great image to be missed. I suggest people who would like their outcry and idea to weight more to give some minutes of their lifes to the process being personally involved instead of limiting their action to coarse external criticism. That will certainly have a positive impact on IOTD process.
3- it is by far the one with best images around (APOD, AAPOD-2...)
4- anyways, it is constantly moving, looking for improvement
5- because it is AB interest in having a IOTD being the best it can be
At the end of the process, the images who did not make it to TPN, TP, or IOTD are still on AB, published in its opening page, and all the community can enjoy their view.
After all, as far as I know, being nominated TP or IOTD is not associated with any reward, prize or whatever, except personal satisfaction, and I echo what Jan Erik earlier said in the thread: if getting top picks and IOTD's are the driving factor for people then they really should re-consider things.
My 2 cents
CS

I spent two years, mostly as a submitter. So I speak from the perspective of someone that has given his time to this community and tried to influence the process in many ways (and failed).

I will tell you that it is easy for a great image to be missed - through no fault of the submitter or reviewer - but through many factors outside of the control of the submitters and reviewers as well as the imager. Some of these include: the much larger number of good images, the accident of when a particular image was submitted, the inherent advantage that some imagers have through access to dark and clear skies either through accident or through investment.

The current situation is akin to combining men's and women's teams in sports or eliminating weight categories in wrestling - and then blaming the referees when women or those with lower body weight don't win. Or tell them that participation is voluntary after all, and if they didn't participate, it would make things easier for the referees. Or if they are in it to win badges or awards, they should rethink why they are in sports at all. I'm using here arguments that people have made in this thread.

What I constantly find in any discussion of changes to the IOTD as it relates to having categories is very high resistance, typically from a very small number of people (relative to the total size of Astrobin). The implied and sometimes stated position taken is that such changes will dilute what they see as their own accomplishments and advantages. It is so everywhere - people who benefit from the status quo will always be resistant to change and the most vocal advocates against it.

Edited ...

11.02 Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography #... · view views
Salvatore Iovene: Arun H: My own opinion is that making any meaningful changes to the IOTD process holds the same degree of difficulty as getting something passed through the US Senate or amending the US Constitution. So we will just continue with the way things are. To be fair, the IOTD/TP process is being improved and fine-tuned very often. Non-believers can refer to GitHub. The issue is that often times I get request that call for a radical change / complete redesign. You understand why I'd be hesitant to do something that: - will require probably 6-12 months of work followed by years of fine-tuning (all of which will take time away from other aspects of AstroBin) - has no guarantee of yielding better results other than the proposer thinks it's better - throws away 10ish years of work and gradual improvement because the process is not 100% failproof (spoiler: no such process is) Over the years I've received lots of suggestions for the IOTD/TP. They fall into these categories: - good idea for a minor improvement: I've implemented lots of these! - bad idea for a minor "improvement": it would actually make things slightly worse - good idea for a major improvement or radical redesign: it sounds like a good idea and it might or might not work: it's probably not worth the risk at this time - bad idea for a major "improvement" or radical redesign: obviously not gonna do it and I typically explain the reasons (sometimes not for the first time ) Sometimes I get conspiracy theories like "fixing" results in exchange of money, favoring remote hosting sponsors, or again "fixing" results because the IOTD/TP team is biased against them or whatnot. Sometimes I get plenty of verbal abuse. Sometimes I get sensationalist and accusatory opinions like "the IOTD/TP is a farce". Those who know me and have some understanding of what it takes to run a website like this know that I work a lot and do my best to keep things running as well as possible in the interest of the astro community. At the of the day, while I'm not claiming that the IOTD/TP is perfect, it's surely a system that has addressed a lot of low-hanging and high-hanging fruits that anybody who would want to set up an alternative system would have to figure out, even if such system works on different architectural principles. It has evolved over 10 years and it's pretty damn good. Certainly the best out there, for astrophotography. The stack ranking process I've suggested here and elsewhere would not require much more than a weekend and would drastically increase the value of this process. We got yet another dust M78 today. A running joke amongst myself and others about how busted this process is. I'm sure the image is nice. Stack rank the process from start to finish. Judges included. Make every level of the process blind to all involved in it (fyi, judges get to see who you are today, for no good reason other than YOLO) and follow basic principles of a real evaluation process used by every other system you know. This isn't rocket science. Why this terrible system remains is beyond me. For Sal's credit, he has made very recent changes due to the fact that his Reviewer community went comatose, but the real problems won't get fixed until every level is blind, and no one cherry picks. Bill Like

11.02

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography

#...

Salvatore Iovene:
Arun H:
My own opinion is that making any meaningful changes to the IOTD process holds the same degree of difficulty as getting something passed through the US Senate or amending the US Constitution. So we will just continue with the way things are.

To be fair, the IOTD/TP process is being improved and fine-tuned very often. Non-believers can refer to GitHub. The issue is that often times I get request that call for a radical change / complete redesign. You understand why I'd be hesitant to do something that:

- will require probably 6-12 months of work followed by years of fine-tuning (all of which will take time away from other aspects of AstroBin)
- has no guarantee of yielding better results other than the proposer thinks it's better
- throws away 10ish years of work and gradual improvement because the process is not 100% failproof (spoiler: no such process is)

Over the years I've received lots of suggestions for the IOTD/TP. They fall into these categories:

- good idea for a minor improvement: I've implemented lots of these!
- bad idea for a minor "improvement": it would actually make things slightly worse
- good idea for a major improvement or radical redesign: it sounds like a good idea and it might or might not work: it's probably not worth the risk at this time
- bad idea for a major "improvement" or radical redesign: obviously not gonna do it and I typically explain the reasons (sometimes not for the first time )

Sometimes I get conspiracy theories like "fixing" results in exchange of money, favoring remote hosting sponsors, or again "fixing" results because the IOTD/TP team is biased against them or whatnot. Sometimes I get plenty of verbal abuse. Sometimes I get sensationalist and accusatory opinions like "the IOTD/TP is a farce".

Those who know me and have some understanding of what it takes to run a website like this know that I work a lot and do my best to keep things running as well as possible in the interest of the astro community.

At the of the day, while I'm not claiming that the IOTD/TP is perfect, it's surely a system that has addressed a lot of low-hanging and high-hanging fruits that anybody who would want to set up an alternative system would have to figure out, even if such system works on different architectural principles. It has evolved over 10 years and it's pretty damn good. Certainly the best out there, for astrophotography.

The stack ranking process I've suggested here and elsewhere would not require much more than a weekend and would drastically increase the value of this process.

We got yet another dust M78 today. A running joke amongst myself and others about how busted this process is. I'm sure the image is nice.

Stack rank the process from start to finish. Judges included. Make every level of the process blind to all involved in it (fyi, judges get to see who you are today, for no good reason other than YOLO) and follow basic principles of a real evaluation process used by every other system you know.

This isn't rocket science. Why this terrible system remains is beyond me.

For Sal's credit, he has made very recent changes due to the fact that his Reviewer community went comatose, but the real problems won't get fixed until every level is blind, and no one cherry picks.

Bill

7.80 andrea tasselli #... · view views
I'd rather Salvatore to spend time on important features (such as a personalized heat-map of your own images, hint hint...) rather than that bloody IOTD. Abolish it and replace it with AI generated fakes for all I care. Edited ... Like

11.02 Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography #... · view views · 1 like
andrea tasselli: I'd rather Salvatore to spend time on important features (such as a personalized heat-map of your own images, hint hint...) rather than that bloody IOTD. Abolish it and replace it with AI generated fakes for all I care. IOTD is a paid feature for customers to submit data to. Don't be obtuse. Like

6.68 framoro #... · view views · 1 like
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: I am one of the submitters, the first line in IOTD process. The process is far from being perfect, but: 1- it is free 2- it is based on democratic evaluations by a significant number of volunteer submitters, reviewers and judges every image goes through. This makes highly improbable (impossible is not of our world) for a great image to be missed. I suggest people who would like their outcry and idea to weight more to give some minutes of their lifes to the process being personally involved instead of limiting their action to coarse external criticism. That will certainly have a positive impact on IOTD process. 3- it is by far the one with best images around (APOD, AAPOD-2...) 4- anyways, it is constantly moving, looking for improvement 5- because it is AB interest in having a IOTD being the best it can be At the end of the process, the images who did not make it to TPN, TP, or IOTD are still on AB, published in its opening page, and all the community can enjoy their view. After all, as far as I know, being nominated TP or IOTD is not associated with any reward, prize or whatever, except personal satisfaction, and I echo what Jan Erik earlier said in the thread: if getting top picks and IOTD's are the driving factor for people then they really should re-consider things. My 2 cents CS Let's be real with people about what you actually do in this role. I've done it myself so I'm not making this up. You log into the site, you get bombarded with images, and are presented with three slots to cherry pick your favorite images into. You log off. That's not the democratic process you just went off about. It's a poorly constructed process in which you are only allowed 3 picks out of a sea of images. If you could rank them all from top to bottom, that would be far more useful. No? Bill It is a bit different than you remember from your previous experience. Submitters log into the system and go through images that other 20 submitters will have in their queue. This allows more submitters to be able to pick each specific picture. The pictures I (and other 20 submitters) will see need 3 picks to be promoted to the next level. I (like other submitters) have 6 slots. Not 3, as in the past and as you remember. These changes were implemented to allow larger spaces in the net for pictures to pass to the next level. Like

6.68

framoro

#...

· 1 like

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
I am one of the submitters, the first line in IOTD process.
The process is far from being perfect, but:
1- it is free
2- it is based on democratic evaluations by a significant number of volunteer submitters, reviewers and judges every image goes through. This makes highly improbable (impossible is not of our world) for a great image to be missed. I suggest people who would like their outcry and idea to weight more to give some minutes of their lifes to the process being personally involved instead of limiting their action to coarse external criticism. That will certainly have a positive impact on IOTD process.
3- it is by far the one with best images around (APOD, AAPOD-2...)
4- anyways, it is constantly moving, looking for improvement
5- because it is AB interest in having a IOTD being the best it can be
At the end of the process, the images who did not make it to TPN, TP, or IOTD are still on AB, published in its opening page, and all the community can enjoy their view.
After all, as far as I know, being nominated TP or IOTD is not associated with any reward, prize or whatever, except personal satisfaction, and I echo what Jan Erik earlier said in the thread: if getting top picks and IOTD's are the driving factor for people then they really should re-consider things.
My 2 cents
CS

Let's be real with people about what you actually do in this role. I've done it myself so I'm not making this up.

You log into the site, you get bombarded with images, and are presented with three slots to cherry pick your favorite images into.

You log off.

That's not the democratic process you just went off about. It's a poorly constructed process in which you are only allowed 3 picks out of a sea of images.

If you could rank them all from top to bottom, that would be far more useful. No?

Bill

It is a bit different than you remember from your previous experience.
Submitters log into the system and go through images that other 20 submitters will have in their queue. This allows more submitters to be able to pick each specific picture.
The pictures I (and other 20 submitters) will see need 3 picks to be promoted to the next level.
I (like other submitters) have 6 slots. Not 3, as in the past and as you remember. These changes were implemented to allow larger spaces in the net for pictures to pass to the next level.

7.80 andrea tasselli #... · view views
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: OTD is a paid feature for customers to submit data to. Don't be obtuse. I very much don't recall this being anywhere near the contract when I signed up to it. Like

6.68 framoro #... · view views
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: andrea tasselli: I'd rather Salvatore to spend time on important features (such as a personalized heat-map of your own images, hint hint...) rather than that bloody IOTD. Abolish it and replace it with AI generated fakes for all I care. IOTD is a paid feature for customers to submit data to. Don't be obtuse. Can you please develop this? Thanks. Like

11.02 Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography #... · view views · 1 like
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: I am one of the submitters, the first line in IOTD process. The process is far from being perfect, but: 1- it is free 2- it is based on democratic evaluations by a significant number of volunteer submitters, reviewers and judges every image goes through. This makes highly improbable (impossible is not of our world) for a great image to be missed. I suggest people who would like their outcry and idea to weight more to give some minutes of their lifes to the process being personally involved instead of limiting their action to coarse external criticism. That will certainly have a positive impact on IOTD process. 3- it is by far the one with best images around (APOD, AAPOD-2...) 4- anyways, it is constantly moving, looking for improvement 5- because it is AB interest in having a IOTD being the best it can be At the end of the process, the images who did not make it to TPN, TP, or IOTD are still on AB, published in its opening page, and all the community can enjoy their view. After all, as far as I know, being nominated TP or IOTD is not associated with any reward, prize or whatever, except personal satisfaction, and I echo what Jan Erik earlier said in the thread: if getting top picks and IOTD's are the driving factor for people then they really should re-consider things. My 2 cents CS Let's be real with people about what you actually do in this role. I've done it myself so I'm not making this up. You log into the site, you get bombarded with images, and are presented with three slots to cherry pick your favorite images into. You log off. That's not the democratic process you just went off about. It's a poorly constructed process in which you are only allowed 3 picks out of a sea of images. If you could rank them all from top to bottom, that would be far more useful. No? Bill It is a bit different than you remember from your previous experience. Submitters log into the system and go through images that other 20 submitters will have in their queue. This allows more submitters to be able to pick each specific picture. The pictures I (and other 20 submitters) will see need 3 picks to be promoted to the next level. I (like other submitters) have 6 slots. Not 3, as in the past and as you remember. These changes were implemented to allow larger spaces in the net for pictures to pass to the next level. You pick things out of sea of more than you have on hand. If you do not look at those things or cherry pick those things, the un-cherry-picked-enough sea goes to the other half of the population of submitters to then do the same cherry pick crap the first set did. I know how the process works. It doesn't matter if it is 3 or 6. The same failure mode occurs. That failure mode, is that this process is broken because it depends on peoples personal bias. Give a full stack rank. Rank them from top to bottom. Ive explained this multiple times to Sal, and he did say he thought that would be much better. The problem is he claimed he had other things to do, and IOTD is a PAID FOR CUSTOMER FEATURE. I dont really know what is more important than what you literally list on the paid feature set for people to pay for the service. If the paid for feature does not work in the way the people that PAY FOR IT deem to be right, you know what you do? YOU FIX IT. I sell data to people all over the world, and if they have any issues with WHAT THEY PAY FOR, I FIX IT. How is this not common sense? -Bill Edited ... Like

11.02

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography

#...

· 1 like

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
I am one of the submitters, the first line in IOTD process.
The process is far from being perfect, but:
1- it is free
2- it is based on democratic evaluations by a significant number of volunteer submitters, reviewers and judges every image goes through. This makes highly improbable (impossible is not of our world) for a great image to be missed. I suggest people who would like their outcry and idea to weight more to give some minutes of their lifes to the process being personally involved instead of limiting their action to coarse external criticism. That will certainly have a positive impact on IOTD process.
3- it is by far the one with best images around (APOD, AAPOD-2...)
4- anyways, it is constantly moving, looking for improvement
5- because it is AB interest in having a IOTD being the best it can be
At the end of the process, the images who did not make it to TPN, TP, or IOTD are still on AB, published in its opening page, and all the community can enjoy their view.
After all, as far as I know, being nominated TP or IOTD is not associated with any reward, prize or whatever, except personal satisfaction, and I echo what Jan Erik earlier said in the thread: if getting top picks and IOTD's are the driving factor for people then they really should re-consider things.
My 2 cents
CS

Let's be real with people about what you actually do in this role. I've done it myself so I'm not making this up.

You log into the site, you get bombarded with images, and are presented with three slots to cherry pick your favorite images into.

You log off.

That's not the democratic process you just went off about. It's a poorly constructed process in which you are only allowed 3 picks out of a sea of images.

If you could rank them all from top to bottom, that would be far more useful. No?

Bill

It is a bit different than you remember from your previous experience.
Submitters log into the system and go through images that other 20 submitters will have in their queue. This allows more submitters to be able to pick each specific picture.
The pictures I (and other 20 submitters) will see need 3 picks to be promoted to the next level.
I (like other submitters) have 6 slots. Not 3, as in the past and as you remember. These changes were implemented to allow larger spaces in the net for pictures to pass to the next level.

You pick things out of sea of more than you have on hand. If you do not look at those things or cherry pick those things, the un-cherry-picked-enough sea goes to the other half of the population of submitters to then do the same cherry pick crap the first set did.

I know how the process works. It doesn't matter if it is 3 or 6. The same failure mode occurs.

That failure mode, is that this process is broken because it depends on peoples personal bias. Give a full stack rank. Rank them from top to bottom. Ive explained this multiple times to Sal, and he did say he thought that would be much better.

The problem is he claimed he had other things to do, and IOTD is a PAID FOR CUSTOMER FEATURE. I dont really know what is more important than what you literally list on the paid feature set for people to pay for the service.

If the paid for feature does not work in the way the people that PAY FOR IT deem to be right, you know what you do?

YOU FIX IT.

I sell data to people all over the world, and if they have any issues with WHAT THEY PAY FOR, I FIX IT.

How is this not common sense?

-Bill

Edited ...

7.80 andrea tasselli #... · view views
Read the friggin' Terms of Service, here below posted verbatim: DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE The Service Provider may offer to provide some services and content, as described with more detail on the Site, ("Services"). Services shall include, but not be limited to, any service and content the Service Provider performs for you (including, but not limited to the display of text, user comments, messages, information, data, graphics, photographs, images, illustrations, software, also known as the "Content"). The Service Provider may change, suspend or discontinue the Services including any Content for any reason, at any time, including the availability of any feature or content. The Service Provider may also impose limits on certain features and services of restrict your access to parts or all the Services without notice of liability. Does it say anywhere in the text that there is such a thing as IOTP and you have the darn right to see your image on it at least once a year? No? End of story. Edited ... Like

7.80

andrea tasselli

#...

Read the friggin' Terms of Service, here below posted verbatim:

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
The Service Provider may offer to provide some services and content, as described with more detail on the Site, ("Services"). Services shall include, but not be limited to, any service and content the Service Provider performs for you (including, but not limited to the display of text, user comments, messages, information, data, graphics, photographs, images, illustrations, software, also known as the "Content"). The Service Provider may change, suspend or discontinue the Services including any Content for any reason, at any time, including the availability of any feature or content. The Service Provider may also impose limits on certain features and services of restrict your access to parts or all the Services without notice of liability.

Does it say anywhere in the text that there is such a thing as IOTP and you have the darn right to see your image on it at least once a year?

No? End of story.

Edited ...

AdrianC. #... · view views
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: andrea tasselli: I'd rather Salvatore to spend time on important features (such as a personalized heat-map of your own images, hint hint...) rather than that bloody IOTD. Abolish it and replace it with AI generated fakes for all I care. IOTD is a paid feature for customers to submit data to. Don't be obtuse. Bill, the underlying issue is, why do we need such a system at all? I also print my images on aluminum and have them hanging around the house. Much better than having to stare at a computer screen all the time. Also there is the aforementioned individual solution of having a personal website. Don't put so much thought in this IOTD thing, it's useless. It drives people to unnecessarily compete and argue, and for what? Like

AdrianC.

#...

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
andrea tasselli:
I'd rather Salvatore to spend time on important features (such as a personalized heat-map of your own images, hint hint...) rather than that bloody IOTD. Abolish it and replace it with AI generated fakes for all I care.

IOTD is a paid feature for customers to submit data to. Don't be obtuse.

Bill, the underlying issue is, why do we need such a system at all?

I also print my images on aluminum and have them hanging around the house. Much better than having to stare at a computer screen all the time.

Also there is the aforementioned individual solution of having a personal website.

Don't put so much thought in this IOTD thing, it's useless. It drives people to unnecessarily compete and argue, and for what?

11.02 Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography #... · view views
andrea tasselli: Read the friggin' Terms of Service, here below posted verbatim: DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE The Service Provider may offer to provide some services and content, as described with more detail on the Site, ("Services"). Services shall include, but not be limited to, any service and content the Service Provider performs for you (including, but not limited to the display of text, user comments, messages, information, data, graphics, photographs, images, illustrations, software, also known as the "Content"). The Service Provider may change, suspend or discontinue the Services including any Content for any reason, at any time, including the availability of any feature or content. The Service Provider may also impose limits on certain features and services of restrict your access to parts or all the Services without notice of liability. Does it say anywhere in the text that there is such a thing as IOTP and you have the darn right to see your image on it at least once a year? No? End of story. No one asked for that, so what you suggested here is just a strawman argument. IOTD is a paid-for feature that does not work well. The developer has confirmed this. What you posted here is just obtuse garbage that has no relevancy to the discussion at all. Like

11.02

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography

#...

andrea tasselli:
Read the friggin' Terms of Service, here below posted verbatim:

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
The Service Provider may offer to provide some services and content, as described with more detail on the Site, ("Services"). Services shall include, but not be limited to, any service and content the Service Provider performs for you (including, but not limited to the display of text, user comments, messages, information, data, graphics, photographs, images, illustrations, software, also known as the "Content"). The Service Provider may change, suspend or discontinue the Services including any Content for any reason, at any time, including the availability of any feature or content. The Service Provider may also impose limits on certain features and services of restrict your access to parts or all the Services without notice of liability.

Does it say anywhere in the text that there is such a thing as IOTP and you have the darn right to see your image on it at least once a year?

No? End of story.

No one asked for that, so what you suggested here is just a strawman argument.

IOTD is a paid-for feature that does not work well. The developer has confirmed this. What you posted here is just obtuse garbage that has no relevancy to the discussion at all.

20.43 Chris White- Overcast Observatory #... · view views · 4 likes
I stopped paying much attention to IOTD a long time ago.... to be honest, I just dont care anymore and will probably regret wading into this discussion. For me, I got sick of seeing the same imagers getting IOTD over and over and over again. If you go back through the IOTD for the last year there are a handful of people who seem to get it repeatedly. Most of these are excellent images, but there are thousands of images from hundreds of outstanding imagers that are not getting it? Why are so few people getting a disproportionate high number of IOTD's? The system seems biased to me. From what I understand, the final level of promotion is not blind, so the promoters know who it is. Shouldnt an image stand on it's own? Why should a judge know who made the image at any point in the process? I know watermarks (when embedded before uploading) makes this difficult, but still.... go back through the last year and you will see that some people just seem to get IOTD over and over again... So we went from the old system where IOTD was a community popularity contest to a current system where the judges are participating in favoritism? The current biased system devalues IOTD. Scroll through the feeds and there are countless IOTD worthy images... many dont even get top pick or nominations which is really sad. Regarding the comparison to APOD. I have no problem with APOD. Thats a publication that shows cool "space" pictures to the general public. Abin is a community of imagers, and caters to imagers. IOTD should be held to a much higher standard when it comes to technical and artistic consideration. Like

20.43

Chris White- Overcast Observatory

#...

· 4 likes

I stopped paying much attention to IOTD a long time ago.... to be honest, I just dont care anymore and will probably regret wading into this discussion.

For me, I got sick of seeing the same imagers getting IOTD over and over and over again. If you go back through the IOTD for the last year there are a handful of people who seem to get it repeatedly. Most of these are excellent images, but there are thousands of images from hundreds of outstanding imagers that are not getting it? Why are so few people getting a disproportionate high number of IOTD's? The system seems biased to me. From what I understand, the final level of promotion is not blind, so the promoters know who it is. Shouldnt an image stand on it's own? Why should a judge know who made the image at any point in the process? I know watermarks (when embedded before uploading) makes this difficult, but still.... go back through the last year and you will see that some people just seem to get IOTD over and over again... So we went from the old system where IOTD was a community popularity contest to a current system where the judges are participating in favoritism?

The current biased system devalues IOTD. Scroll through the feeds and there are countless IOTD worthy images... many dont even get top pick or nominations which is really sad.

Regarding the comparison to APOD. I have no problem with APOD. Thats a publication that shows cool "space" pictures to the general public. Abin is a community of imagers, and caters to imagers. IOTD should be held to a much higher standard when it comes to technical and artistic consideration.

7.80 andrea tasselli #... · view views
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: IOTD is a paid-for feature that does not work well. The developer has confirmed this. What you posted here is just obtuse garbage that has no relevancy to the discussion at all. If it ain't in what you willingly subscribed to then it does not exist. I rest my case. Like

Salvatore Iovene #... · view views · 4 likes
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: IOTD is a paid-for feature that does not work well. The developer has confirmed this. First the sensationalist title, now the fake news. This is completely untrue. Like

11.02 Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography #... · view views · 1 like
AdrianC.: Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: andrea tasselli: I'd rather Salvatore to spend time on important features (such as a personalized heat-map of your own images, hint hint...) rather than that bloody IOTD. Abolish it and replace it with AI generated fakes for all I care. IOTD is a paid feature for customers to submit data to. Don't be obtuse. Bill, the underlying issue is, why do we need such a system at all? I also print my images on aluminum and have them hanging around the house. Much better than having to stare at a computer screen all the time. Also there is the aforementioned individual solution of having a personal website. Don't put so much thought in this IOTD thing, it's useless. It drives people to unnecessarily compete and argue, and for what? Its not the competition I care about. I think there are images here that grossly benefit from either the imager being known, or a prejudice from the staff in terms of what they like. Mostly the last two are a fault of the judges. I vomit when I see the 6th or 7th NGC1333 or M78. That is a bias and preferece issue, and is caused by the judges being given unilateral control of where that final award goes. The voting process overall is flawed, but more importantly people could appreciate a completely blind and non-biased review of their data. It can help promote the hobby, if done right, or it can completely take a shit on it, as it is implemeted now. Make no mistake about this, the current IOTD process is laughed about, among physicists, people that work at NASA, and beyond. It is a complete joke, and it can be fixed to not be so. That is what I am advocating for. A good, real, normal voting process that does not need some over-eager person in Australia or Namibia or Washington State to decide its fate. -Bill Like

11.02

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography

#...

· 1 like

AdrianC.:
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
andrea tasselli:
I'd rather Salvatore to spend time on important features (such as a personalized heat-map of your own images, hint hint...) rather than that bloody IOTD. Abolish it and replace it with AI generated fakes for all I care.

IOTD is a paid feature for customers to submit data to. Don't be obtuse.

Bill, the underlying issue is, why do we need such a system at all?

I also print my images on aluminum and have them hanging around the house. Much better than having to stare at a computer screen all the time.

Also there is the aforementioned individual solution of having a personal website.

Don't put so much thought in this IOTD thing, it's useless. It drives people to unnecessarily compete and argue, and for what?

Its not the competition I care about. I think there are images here that grossly benefit from either the imager being known, or a prejudice from the staff in terms of what they like. Mostly the last two are a fault of the judges. I vomit when I see the 6th or 7th NGC1333 or M78. That is a bias and preferece issue, and is caused by the judges being given unilateral control of where that final award goes.

The voting process overall is flawed, but more importantly people could appreciate a completely blind and non-biased review of their data. It can help promote the hobby, if done right, or it can completely take a shit on it, as it is implemeted now.

Make no mistake about this, the current IOTD process is laughed about, among physicists, people that work at NASA, and beyond. It is a complete joke, and it can be fixed to not be so.

That is what I am advocating for. A good, real, normal voting process that does not need some over-eager person in Australia or Namibia or Washington State to decide its fate.

-Bill

11.99 Arun H #... · view views · 3 likes
Chris White- Overcast Observatory: The current biased system devalues IOTD. Scroll through the feeds and there are countless IOTD worthy images... many dont even get top pick or nominations which is really sad. While there may or may not be bias, it is at least true that a large number of good images will be missed due to the very limited number of slots. There could be multiple ways to fix this problem. But as I mentioned above, you will see resistance to doing it from a relatively very small number of people for whom the current system works. A large number of other people don't even bother to participate in these discussions because they know that no meaningful change will happen. I cannot remember now the last time I looked at the list of TPs and TPNs. And I just gloss over whatever image shows up as IOTD on a particular day. Like

11.99

Arun H

#...

· 3 likes

Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
The current biased system devalues IOTD. Scroll through the feeds and there are countless IOTD worthy images... many dont even get top pick or nominations which is really sad.

While there may or may not be bias, it is at least true that a large number of good images will be missed due to the very limited number of slots. There could be multiple ways to fix this problem. But as I mentioned above, you will see resistance to doing it from a relatively very small number of people for whom the current system works. A large number of other people don't even bother to participate in these discussions because they know that no meaningful change will happen. I cannot remember now the last time I looked at the list of TPs and TPNs. And I just gloss over whatever image shows up as IOTD on a particular day.

11.02 Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography #... · view views
Salvatore Iovene: Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: IOTD is a paid-for feature that does not work well. The developer has confirmed this. First the sensationalist title, now the fake news. This is completely untrue. From: Salvatore Iovene <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 6:48 AM To: Bill Long <[email protected]> Subject: Re: IOTD Problem Hi Bill, I’m aware that there’s a little bit of a Top Pick draught going on since quite some time. I’m taking measures to improve the situation as the average number of Top Pick daily is currently not deemed to be representative of the quality and quantity of images submitted for IOTD/TP consideration. Thanks for the feedback! Salvatore Oh really? Fake News? Nope. Edited ... Like

11.02

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography

#...

Salvatore Iovene:
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
IOTD is a paid-for feature that does not work well. The developer has confirmed this.

First the sensationalist title, now the fake news. This is completely untrue.

From: Salvatore Iovene <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 6:48 AM
To: Bill Long <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: IOTD Problem

Hi Bill,

I’m aware that there’s a little bit of a Top Pick draught going on since quite some time. I’m taking measures to improve the situation as the average number of Top Pick daily is currently not deemed to be representative of the quality and quantity of images submitted for IOTD/TP consideration.

Thanks for the feedback!
Salvatore

Oh really? Fake News? Nope.

Edited ...

Salvatore Iovene #... · view views
That doesn't mean that I said "it's not working well", LOL. The IOTD/TP process requires occasional fine-tuning in some parameters (number of staff members, number of voting slots, length of time for an image to be in the process, etc) as external factors change (fatigue of the teams, new team members who need to adjust, etc). Like

11.02 Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography #... · view views
Salvatore Iovene: That doesn't mean that I said "it's not working well", LOL. The IOTD/TP process requires occasional fine-tuning in some parameters (number of staff members, number of voting slots, length of time for an image to be in the process, etc) as external factors change (fatigue of the teams, new team members who need to adjust, etc). Oh right, hmm... but here you changed the service. So clearly it was not working well. Right? From: Salvatore Iovene <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 7:05 AM To: Bill Long <[email protected]> Subject: Re: IOTD Problem Hi Bill, once an image advanced to the next tier, Submitters will stop being able to view it, so views won’t be collected anymore. AstroBin doesn’t count Reviewer views at the moment, but it keeps record of votes of course. If a Reviewer is not active enough (used to be 7 votes per week but I just bumped it to 14) they are warned, and then removed from the team (to avoid unlucky images being in the queue of an insufficiently active team member). However, as I said, yes: there needs to be more Reviewer activity. I just added two more voting slots for them, 2 more reviewers (and I will add a few more), and made the minimum required activity 14 votes per week. Hopefully this helps! Salvatore Edited ... Like

11.02

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography

#...

Salvatore Iovene:
That doesn't mean that I said "it's not working well", LOL. The IOTD/TP process requires occasional fine-tuning in some parameters (number of staff members, number of voting slots, length of time for an image to be in the process, etc) as external factors change (fatigue of the teams, new team members who need to adjust, etc).

Oh right, hmm... but here you changed the service. So clearly it was not working well. Right?

From: Salvatore Iovene <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 7:05 AM
To: Bill Long <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: IOTD Problem

Hi Bill,

once an image advanced to the next tier, Submitters will stop being able to view it, so views won’t be collected anymore.

AstroBin doesn’t count Reviewer views at the moment, but it keeps record of votes of course. If a Reviewer is not active enough (used to be 7 votes per week but I just bumped it to 14) they are warned, and then removed from the team (to avoid unlucky images being in the queue of an insufficiently active team member).

However, as I said, yes: there needs to be more Reviewer activity. I just added two more voting slots for them, 2 more reviewers (and I will add a few more), and made the minimum required activity 14 votes per week.

Hopefully this helps!

Salvatore

Edited ...

11.02 Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography #... · view views
Salvatore Iovene: Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: IOTD is a paid-for feature that does not work well. The developer has confirmed this. First the sensationalist title, now the fake news. This is completely untrue. So this statement you made here ^^^ Is the one that is completely untrue, right? Like

Salvatore Iovene #... · view views · 3 likes
Number of slots is a parameter that needs fine-tuning sometimes. If you think that a system that evolves and improves over time is broken because it's not perfect like a deity, then this is on you. Like

11.02 Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography #... · view views
Salvatore Iovene: Number of slots is a parameter that needs fine-tuning sometimes. If you think that a system that evolves and improves over time is broken because it's not perfect like a deity, then this is on you. Or you can use what every other voting system uses. Blind votes. This would be an upgrade. Stack ranking, which allows for more engagement across the data your team is asked to look at, and a way for them not to cherry pick. BLIND JUDGES: The most important part of this. Your judges know who people are. That completely undermines the entire process. All scientific evaluations of judges have shown that knowing the parties being judged, always leads to a change in their decision otherwise. Astrobin is a flawed process. You have admitted this to me (then lied to people here), changed the process, but did not fix the root cause. You should implement stack ranking. I sent you a very brief note about this. If you find this to be a challenge, I am willing to give free time to you if you want to implement this change. You should make every tier of ranking completely blind. -Bill Like

11.02

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography

#...

Salvatore Iovene:
Number of slots is a parameter that needs fine-tuning sometimes. If you think that a system that evolves and improves over time is broken because it's not perfect like a deity, then this is on you.

Or you can use what every other voting system uses.

Blind votes. This would be an upgrade.
Stack ranking, which allows for more engagement across the data your team is asked to look at, and a way for them not to cherry pick.
BLIND JUDGES: The most important part of this. Your judges know who people are. That completely undermines the entire process. All scientific evaluations of judges have shown that knowing the parties being judged, always leads to a change in their decision otherwise.

Astrobin is a flawed process. You have admitted this to me (then lied to people here), changed the process, but did not fix the root cause.

You should implement stack ranking. I sent you a very brief note about this. If you find this to be a challenge, I am willing to give free time to you if you want to implement this change.

You should make every tier of ranking completely blind.

-Bill

11.02 Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography #... · view views
Chris White- Overcast Observatory: I stopped paying much attention to IOTD a long time ago.... to be honest, I just dont care anymore and will probably regret wading into this discussion. For me, I got sick of seeing the same imagers getting IOTD over and over and over again. If you go back through the IOTD for the last year there are a handful of people who seem to get it repeatedly. Most of these are excellent images, but there are thousands of images from hundreds of outstanding imagers that are not getting it? Why are so few people getting a disproportionate high number of IOTD's? The system seems biased to me. From what I understand, the final level of promotion is not blind, so the promoters know who it is. Shouldnt an image stand on it's own? Why should a judge know who made the image at any point in the process? I know watermarks (when embedded before uploading) makes this difficult, but still.... go back through the last year and you will see that some people just seem to get IOTD over and over again... So we went from the old system where IOTD was a community popularity contest to a current system where the judges are participating in favoritism? The current biased system devalues IOTD. Scroll through the feeds and there are countless IOTD worthy images... many dont even get top pick or nominations which is really sad. Regarding the comparison to APOD. I have no problem with APOD. Thats a publication that shows cool "space" pictures to the general public. Abin is a community of imagers, and caters to imagers. IOTD should be held to a much higher standard when it comes to technical and artistic consideration. People likely passed this comment over from Chris, but people should take the time to read it. This is the feedback I get from all imagers at all levels of competency. Chris owns a Maple Syrup company in Vermont. While to some that might seem odd for me to mention, stay with me. The juding process of who has the best maple syrup in Vermont is a highly contested award, after all the syrup from Vermont, is likely (if you live in the US) still in the cheapo syrup containers you buy -- its just the stuff they would discard vs sell. Nontheless, the awards are important. Not because Chris or other companies want to flex, its to help them be recognized. Astro imaging has the same game. People want to be known, and with the current state of things we see the data show that significant weight is given, by the non-blind judging panel, to those commonplace to Top Picks or IOTD. This is a fundemental flaw that needs to be fixed, as soon as possible. IOTD is a paid feature of all of the folks that sign up for that level of the service. Calling our feedback "fake news" when it isnt, or otherwise diminishing the disdain for a paid feature is poor business and should never be a part of a distinguished online service. -Bill Like

11.02

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography

#...

Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
I stopped paying much attention to IOTD a long time ago.... to be honest, I just dont care anymore and will probably regret wading into this discussion.

For me, I got sick of seeing the same imagers getting IOTD over and over and over again. If you go back through the IOTD for the last year there are a handful of people who seem to get it repeatedly. Most of these are excellent images, but there are thousands of images from hundreds of outstanding imagers that are not getting it? Why are so few people getting a disproportionate high number of IOTD's? The system seems biased to me. From what I understand, the final level of promotion is not blind, so the promoters know who it is. Shouldnt an image stand on it's own? Why should a judge know who made the image at any point in the process? I know watermarks (when embedded before uploading) makes this difficult, but still.... go back through the last year and you will see that some people just seem to get IOTD over and over again... So we went from the old system where IOTD was a community popularity contest to a current system where the judges are participating in favoritism?

The current biased system devalues IOTD. Scroll through the feeds and there are countless IOTD worthy images... many dont even get top pick or nominations which is really sad.

Regarding the comparison to APOD. I have no problem with APOD. Thats a publication that shows cool "space" pictures to the general public. Abin is a community of imagers, and caters to imagers. IOTD should be held to a much higher standard when it comes to technical and artistic consideration.

People likely passed this comment over from Chris, but people should take the time to read it.

This is the feedback I get from all imagers at all levels of competency. Chris owns a Maple Syrup company in Vermont. While to some that might seem odd for me to mention, stay with me. The juding process of who has the best maple syrup in Vermont is a highly contested award, after all the syrup from Vermont, is likely (if you live in the US) still in the cheapo syrup containers you buy -- its just the stuff they would discard vs sell. Nontheless, the awards are important. Not because Chris or other companies want to flex, its to help them be recognized.

Astro imaging has the same game. People want to be known, and with the current state of things we see the data show that significant weight is given, by the non-blind judging panel, to those commonplace to Top Picks or IOTD.

This is a fundemental flaw that needs to be fixed, as soon as possible. IOTD is a paid feature of all of the folks that sign up for that level of the service. Calling our feedback "fake news" when it isnt, or otherwise diminishing the disdain for a paid feature is poor business and should never be a part of a distinguished online service.

-Bill

4.36 Jan Erik Vallestad #... · view views · 2 likes
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: Jan Erik Vallestad: That was my point, you didn't give any examples in you original post. I gave an example in a second post well before the one you made here. I would suggest reading that. Well, that's not true unless I'm missing something very obvious. I was the third person posting. Neither of the ones before were from you.. You've edited your original post now so it does comply a bit more with what I requested, that's a start I guess. Like

4.36

Jan Erik Vallestad

#...

· 2 likes

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
Jan Erik Vallestad:
That was my point, you didn't give any examples in you original post.

I gave an example in a second post well before the one you made here. I would suggest reading that.

Well, that's not true unless I'm missing something very obvious. I was the third person posting. Neither of the ones before were from you.. You've edited your original post now so it does comply a bit more with what I requested, that's a start I guess.

Salvatore Iovene #... · view views · 11 likes
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: Blind votes. This would be an upgrade. Submitters and Reviewers already receive anonymized images. You will argue that they can go and look up the images and find the authors. The "fix" for this is to prevent images from being published while they are in the IOTD/TP, and nobody wants that. This is one of the reasons why the IOTD/TP is not a contest. On an actual contest, I would implement this. Additionally, unless you think that the whole world is against you, remember that AstroBin has other ways to combat bias, such as: - a single person only has a 50% probability to get a certain image. If you have a hater or somebody biased against you or your business, they might not get your image to vote - a single vote does nothing: you need 3. So you'd need many people who are biased against you, to make any kind of impact. I sent you more calculations of probabilities in a private message some time ago Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: Stack ranking, which allows for more engagement across the data your team is asked to look at, and a way for them not to cherry pick. This is not feasible. It would require Submitters to spend more time on images, which would cause more fatigue and make them more likely to skip things altogether. Now they need to promote the images they think deserve advancing, so it's easier to scroll past the images that aren't that great. A way to address this would be to add many more Submitters. At that point, there aren't enough volunteers that meet the minimum criteria of having read and understood and agreed with the IOTD manifesto. We'd need to completely democritize and we have a whole lot of issues to deal with. That's a major change that would require several months to design and implement, and carries a huge risk of worsening the process. Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: BLIND JUDGES: The most important part of this. Your judges know who people are. That completely undermines the entire process. All scientific evaluations of judges have shown that knowing the parties being judged, always leads to a change in their decision otherwise. Judges already have to deal with bias-avoidance mechanism: they can only make IOTD one image per week. To get your image discriminated against you need that of the 30 submitters who get it in their queues, 27 are biased against you. Then you need 17 reviewers to be biased against you. Then you need all 7 judges to be biased against you. If you believe this is the case, then unfortunately there is nothing I can say that will make you change your mind. Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: Astrobin is a flawed process. You have admitted this to me (then lied to people here) What I have surely said, and I continue to stand for, is that the IOTD/TP is not a PERFECT process. I'd be mighty arrogant if I said that! But I find it hard to debate with somebody who talks in such inflamatory terms, so I have little patience for this. And you seem to have more time than me. Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: You should make every tier of ranking completely blind. Complete blindless (one that cannot be eluded) might be an improvement. In my opinion, the current level of blindness and bias avoidance is sufficient. If people like dusty images, they will vote for those images regardless of any additional blindness in the system. If you think people are on a cruisade against you, please refer to the thing I mentioned above regarding how many people you need to be set against you for it to work. I find myself now repeating things that I told you privately once, and as much as I don't want to ignore your concerns or wave them away, I cannot continue to repeat myself. Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: Chris White- Overcast Observatory: [..] I got sick of seeing the same imagers getting IOTD over and over and over again. If you go back through the IOTD for the last year there are a handful of people who seem to get it repeatedly. [..] Why are so few people getting a disproportionate high number of IOTD's? The system seems biased to me. [..] People likely passed this comment over from Chris, but people should take the time to read it. This is the feedback I get from all imagers at all levels of competency. [..] The last 365 IOTDs were awarded to 205 distinct astrophotographers. A bit more if you include collaborations. What more do you want, really? Several people have won a few IOTDs... I wonder... is it possible that they keep putting out amazing images, as an explanation? Isn't that supporting the fact that IOTD/TP works well, by awarding great images regardless of who's submitting them? Unfortunately, it seems like you're just being too hard to please, sorry to be blunt. Like

Salvatore Iovene

#...

· 11 likes

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
Blind votes. This would be an upgrade.

Submitters and Reviewers already receive anonymized images. You will argue that they can go and look up the images and find the authors. The "fix" for this is to prevent images from being published while they are in the IOTD/TP, and nobody wants that. This is one of the reasons why the IOTD/TP is not a contest. On an actual contest, I would implement this.

Additionally, unless you think that the whole world is against you, remember that AstroBin has other ways to combat bias, such as:

- a single person only has a 50% probability to get a certain image. If you have a hater or somebody biased against you or your business, they might not get your image to vote
- a single vote does nothing: you need 3. So you'd need many people who are biased against you, to make any kind of impact. I sent you more calculations of probabilities in a private message some time ago

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
Stack ranking, which allows for more engagement across the data your team is asked to look at, and a way for them not to cherry pick.

This is not feasible. It would require Submitters to spend more time on images, which would cause more fatigue and make them more likely to skip things altogether. Now they need to promote the images they think deserve advancing, so it's easier to scroll past the images that aren't that great.

A way to address this would be to add many more Submitters. At that point, there aren't enough volunteers that meet the minimum criteria of having read and understood and agreed with the IOTD manifesto. We'd need to completely democritize and we have a whole lot of issues to deal with. That's a major change that would require several months to design and implement, and carries a huge risk of worsening the process.

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
BLIND JUDGES: The most important part of this. Your judges know who people are. That completely undermines the entire process. All scientific evaluations of judges have shown that knowing the parties being judged, always leads to a change in their decision otherwise.

Judges already have to deal with bias-avoidance mechanism: they can only make IOTD one image per week.

To get your image discriminated against you need that of the 30 submitters who get it in their queues, 27 are biased against you.
Then you need 17 reviewers to be biased against you.
Then you need all 7 judges to be biased against you.

If you believe this is the case, then unfortunately there is nothing I can say that will make you change your mind.

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
Astrobin is a flawed process. You have admitted this to me (then lied to people here)

What I have surely said, and I continue to stand for, is that the IOTD/TP is not a PERFECT process. I'd be mighty arrogant if I said that! But I find it hard to debate with somebody who talks in such inflamatory terms, so I have little patience for this. And you seem to have more time than me.

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
You should make every tier of ranking completely blind.

Complete blindless (one that cannot be eluded) might be an improvement. In my opinion, the current level of blindness and bias avoidance is sufficient. If people like dusty images, they will vote for those images regardless of any additional blindness in the system. If you think people are on a cruisade against you, please refer to the thing I mentioned above regarding how many people you need to be set against you for it to work.

I find myself now repeating things that I told you privately once, and as much as I don't want to ignore your concerns or wave them away, I cannot continue to repeat myself.

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
[..] I got sick of seeing the same imagers getting IOTD over and over and over again. If you go back through the IOTD for the last year there are a handful of people who seem to get it repeatedly. [..] Why are so few people getting a disproportionate high number of IOTD's? The system seems biased to me. [..]

People likely passed this comment over from Chris, but people should take the time to read it.

This is the feedback I get from all imagers at all levels of competency. [..]

The last 365 IOTDs were awarded to 205 distinct astrophotographers. A bit more if you include collaborations. What more do you want, really? Several people have won a few IOTDs... I wonder... is it possible that they keep putting out amazing images, as an explanation? Isn't that supporting the fact that IOTD/TP works well, by awarding great images regardless of who's submitting them?

Unfortunately, it seems like you're just being too hard to please, sorry to be blunt.

	Distinct awarded users	Total awarded images
Image of the day
Top picks
Top pick nominations

	Image of the day	Top pick	Top pick nominations	Total submitted
Deep sky
Solar system
Extremely wide field
Star trails
Northern lights
Noctilucent clouds
Landscape

	Image of the day	Top pick	Top pick nominations	Total submitted
Backyard
Traveller
Own remote observatory
Amateur hosting facility
Public amaeteur data
Professional, scientific grade data
Mix of multiple sources
Other
Unknown

Image Index:

Contribution Index (beta):

IOTD and Why It Needs Improvement AstroBin Platform open discussions community forum · Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography · ... · 281 · 8982 · 3

Image Index:

Contribution Index (beta):

IOTD and Why It Needs Improvement AstroBin Platform open discussions community forum · Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography · ... · 281 · 8982 · 3

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry