I would like to clarify that I'm open to discussions regarding "IOTD categories", explain my position, and evaluate suggestions

#...

· 7 likes

Thanks Salvatore for opening the discussion. I am proposing categories and give arguments (i have posted this in another thread with another topic but it was only read by a few. So, i hope it is OK i post this here again).

1. IOTD categories
Currently images acquired with any gear go to one and the same IOTD competition. This is contrary to any other competition like in sports etc. where there are always categorizations on gear.
I am proposing IOTD categorization by the most obvious characteristic in astro photography i.e. the aperture. It defines how much light is collected and what resolution can be achieved.
My proposal: Three categories for 1. Small, 2. Medium and 3. Large scopes.
I understand that imaging location makes a huge difference, too. But it is hard to define what “backyard”, “remote” and “traveller” is and how that can be clearly defined (some people’s backyard may be darker than other people’s remote site, for example).
Moreover, categorizing by aperture is also an indirect categorisation by location as large scopes are likely located in dark/remote locations and smaller scopes are more likely located in light-polluted suburban backyards.

2 data set purchasing
I see more and more users on AB purchasing data and then just process it. I do see a point for users who don’t have the capability/time/weather etc to acquire the data themselves. But: Astro photography is more then just processing. It is often a stony and long way to acquire many hours of data (for all kinds of imaging incl. in backyard, with own remote telescope or as traveller). My proposal here is that users who purchase data compete in the “Image Processing” category. They could even share identical data sets they process and the competition is about who generates the best image from the same data set. And AB could even help by providing a data base with free data sets.
But if the current trend continues where users buy data, then the next step is that they also buy the service of some one processing the data for them and generating a beautiful image for them (maybe that is already happening?). Eventually, one would post an image where both the data set and processing of the data set has been purchased. And they compete with those who acquire and process the data themselves. Do we want this?

3 beginners
Beginners in astro photography face many challenges. Before the first image can be posted, lots of time needs to be invested in a steep learning curve. Still, a first image cannot compete for any of the awards on AB. Why not having a competition just for beginners who are 1-2 years on AB with no prior publications? That would be motivating for them and help them to improve to eventually be able to compete at the top level.

4 number of awarded images
AB has “Top Pick Nomination”, “Top Pick” and “IOTD”. My perception is that the numbers of awarded images are more or less constant while submissions have grown over the years. Nowadays I see so many excellent images that do not even receive a “Top Pick Nomination”. Image quality has so much improved just over the last ~3 years when I look into catalogues of individuals. The number of awarded images should be determined by quality and not by a fixed (is it?) threshold, right?

Thanks and CS, John

Edited ...

23.42 Mike Cranfield #... · view views · 4 likes
Thanks for starting this topic Salvatore. I get a huge pleasure looking at the wide cross section of images that are posted on Astrobin. I think the IOTD process as currently formulated is very effective in highlighting a selection of interesting images from the huge number submitted every day (I am talking silver and bronze shields as well as IOTDs). When looking at an Astro image I am keen to further both my understanding of the universe - ie the subject captured, as well as the techniques the photographer has employed in creating the image. I find it very frustrating when images are posted with absolutely no details in either of these areas - sometimes there is not even the basic information relating to data capture. With this in mind, could I please suggest that these factors are explicitly taken into account when images are being selected through the IOTD process. This should encourage all photographers to make more informative posts and our collective wisdom as a community will grow accordingly! CS, Mike Like

23.42

Mike Cranfield

#...

· 4 likes

Thanks for starting this topic Salvatore.

I get a huge pleasure looking at the wide cross section of images that are posted on Astrobin. I think the IOTD process as currently formulated is very effective in highlighting a selection of interesting images from the huge number submitted every day (I am talking silver and bronze shields as well as IOTDs).

When looking at an Astro image I am keen to further both my understanding of the universe - ie the subject captured, as well as the techniques the photographer has employed in creating the image. I find it very frustrating when images are posted with absolutely no details in either of these areas - sometimes there is not even the basic information relating to data capture.

With this in mind, could I please suggest that these factors are explicitly taken into account when images are being selected through the IOTD process. This should encourage all photographers to make more informative posts and our collective wisdom as a community will grow accordingly!

CS, Mike

10.79 Björn #... · view views · 6 likes
Hi Salvatore, You have emphasized that the IOTD is not a competition. I have the strong impression however, that a lot of people perceive it like a competition. No matter how often the contrary is emphasized. Hence, I agree with @Ruediger‘s post above. CS, Björn Edited ... Like

11.41 Timothy Martin #... · view views · 3 likes
I can say that what I’m typing here is not a textual post on the internet, but that doesn’t make it so. Merriam-Webster defines “compete” as follows: competeverb com·pete kəm-ˈpēt competed; competing intransitive verb[b]: [/b]to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective (such as position, profit, or a prize) [b]: [/b]be in a state of rivalry The notion that IOTD is not a competition is specious and, sorry to be blunt, patently ridiculous. It’s not just a competition. In the amateur astrophotography world, it is THE competition. The Manifesto makes this undeniable fact obvious by laying out standards for excellence that require great effort and expertise to achieve and by establishing a regime of judging that is thoughtfully constructed and very difficult for a piece of work to navigate successfully. It’s not perfect. As with musical, gymnastic, artistic, or, inter alia, prose competitions, judging is still subjective. But IOTD consistently produces better results than any other astrophotography competition I’ve ever seen. The rewards are clear: enhanced reputation, increased web traffic for those seeking such things, positive feedback for improvement, increased opportunities for things like partnership, publishing, sponsorship, or speaking, and the like. Many of those same rewards also inure to the benefit of Astrobin itself—as they should. The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes are the most prestigious on earth and that they come with million-dollar purses. There’s a reason that the Triple Crown pays out millions to winners. While IOTD has no cash prizes (I keep telling myself that if I just keep at this, someday I can make hundreds of dollars a year), it’s still the pinnacle of this avocation. NASA APOD, AAPOD2, APOD GRaG, and other competitions are nice, but they just boil down to a couple of guys in their mom’s basement choosing pictures they think will make them look good. So it doesn’t matter whether someone, even its creator, says that it is or isn’t a competition. It absolutely is and that’s that. The only possible suggestions I could make regarding categorization or winnowing would be that submissions from professional astronomers or professional sites like Hubble, JWST, Keck, ESO, and yes, outfits like TelescopeLive! should not be considered. Acquisition is part of the process to me. Simply downloading someone else’s professionally acquired data means that the resulting image is not really an amateur image. But I don’t think this needs to be a stated policy or rule. The people involved in the process, from submitters to reviewers to judges, seem to be way ahead of me on this. In the end, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And I don’t think it’s broke. CS, Tim Edited ... Like

11.41

#...

· 3 likes

I can say that what I’m typing here is not a textual post on the internet, but that doesn’t make it so. Merriam-Webster defines “compete” as follows:

competeverb
com·pete kəm-ˈpēt
competed; competing
intransitive verb[b]: [/b]to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective (such as position, profit, or a prize) [b]: [/b]be in a state of rivalry

The notion that IOTD is not a competition is specious and, sorry to be blunt, patently ridiculous. It’s not just a competition. In the amateur astrophotography world, it is THE competition. The Manifesto makes this undeniable fact obvious by laying out standards for excellence that require great effort and expertise to achieve and by establishing a regime of judging that is thoughtfully constructed and very difficult for a piece of work to navigate successfully.

It’s not perfect. As with musical, gymnastic, artistic, or, inter alia, prose competitions, judging is still subjective. But IOTD consistently produces better results than any other astrophotography competition I’ve ever seen. The rewards are clear: enhanced reputation, increased web traffic for those seeking such things, positive feedback for improvement, increased opportunities for things like partnership, publishing, sponsorship, or speaking, and the like.

Many of those same rewards also inure to the benefit of Astrobin itself—as they should. The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes are the most prestigious on earth and that they come with million-dollar purses. There’s a reason that the Triple Crown pays out millions to winners. While IOTD has no cash prizes (I keep telling myself that if I just keep at this, someday I can make hundreds of dollars a year), it’s still the pinnacle of this avocation. NASA APOD, AAPOD2, APOD GRaG, and other competitions are nice, but they just boil down to a couple of guys in their mom’s basement choosing pictures they think will make them look good.

So it doesn’t matter whether someone, even its creator, says that it is or isn’t a competition. It absolutely is and that’s that.

The only possible suggestions I could make regarding categorization or winnowing would be that submissions from professional astronomers or professional sites like Hubble, JWST, Keck, ESO, and yes, outfits like TelescopeLive! should not be considered. Acquisition is part of the process to me. Simply downloading someone else’s professionally acquired data means that the resulting image is not really an amateur image. But I don’t think this needs to be a stated policy or rule. The people involved in the process, from submitters to reviewers to judges, seem to be way ahead of me on this.

In the end, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And I don’t think it’s broke.

CS,
Tim

Edited ...

18.93 Ruediger #... · view views · 11 likes
Hi Tim, I had my finger already on the like button, till I have read your last sentence. I think it is out of balance. For the other points: The IOTDs generate revenue via the sponsors, as Salvatore pointed out. I think this one of the reasons nothing can be changed so easily. The can of worms has been opened, since by that step AB left the pure backyard focus and became more business oriented and this cannot be reverted easily - regardless what ever the community reflects. The IOTDs attract sponsors, because it is advertisement for them. IOTDs generate a toxic tripple benefit: Sponsor attention, revenues for AB and recognition for the artist. Therefore this is a kind of self propelling feature, regardless its drawbacks or imbalances or dissatisfaction it causes. I can state for myself only once more: I am interested in imperfection of a backyard image, and not in high glossy flamboyant Hubble-like images. I want to learn from the struggles, problems and mistakes of fellow "backyard warriors". Small or big scope, refractors or reflectors or through the bottom of Cola bottle. Therefore I need no IOTD, since you only learn and improve from mistakes, and not from perfection, since perfection is not indicating you what to change to improve. Only mistakes do! Moreover my understanding and the reason for me to join AB was, that it was (!) a cozy place for backyard guys, where you also got a cookie for a decent backyard image. This safe harbor for imperfection is not anymore visible to me. Images are measured / compared to images which no backyard equipment will ever achieve - except you live in the Atacama and you call this your backyard. CS Rüdiger Edited ... Like

18.93

#...

· 11 likes

Hi Tim,

I had my finger already on the like button, till I have read your last sentence. I think it is out of balance.

For the other points:
The IOTDs generate revenue via the sponsors, as Salvatore pointed out. I think this one of the reasons nothing can be changed so easily. The can of worms has been opened, since by that step AB left the pure backyard focus and became more business oriented and this cannot be reverted easily - regardless what ever the community reflects.
The IOTDs attract sponsors, because it is advertisement for them. IOTDs generate a toxic tripple benefit: Sponsor attention, revenues for AB and recognition for the artist. Therefore this is a kind of self propelling feature, regardless its drawbacks or imbalances or dissatisfaction it causes.

I can state for myself only once more: I am interested in imperfection of a backyard image, and not in high glossy flamboyant Hubble-like images. I want to learn from the struggles, problems and mistakes of fellow "backyard warriors". Small or big scope, refractors or reflectors or through the bottom of Cola bottle.
Therefore I need no IOTD, since you only learn and improve from mistakes, and not from perfection, since perfection is not indicating you what to change to improve. Only mistakes do!

Moreover my understanding and the reason for me to join AB was, that it was (!) a cozy place for backyard guys, where you also got a cookie for a decent backyard image. This safe harbor for imperfection is not anymore visible to me. Images are measured / compared to images which no backyard equipment will ever achieve - except you live in the Atacama and you call this your backyard.

CS
Rüdiger

Edited ...

7.91 JohnHen #... · view views · 5 likes
Timothy Martin: ... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ... Hi @Timothy Martin interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price? CS, John Like

7.91

#...

· 5 likes

Timothy Martin:
... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ...

Hi @Timothy Martin
interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price?
CS, John

7.91 JohnHen #... · view views · 8 likes
Ruediger: ... AB was, that it was (!) a cozy place for backyard guys, where you also got a cookie for a decent backyard image. This safe harbor for imperfection is not anymore visible to me ... Excellent observation, Ruediger. And it is alarming that some users don't even dare to upload their images (any more) because they feel they are not up to the standards and fear they dont get recognition/visibility for their hard but of course imperfect work. 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), the average Joe backyarder will get increasingly "demoralized" (word borrowed from another poster in a different thread). CS, John Like

7.91

#...

· 8 likes

Ruediger:
... AB was, that it was (!) a cozy place for backyard guys, where you also got a cookie for a decent backyard image. This safe harbor for imperfection is not anymore visible to me ...

Excellent observation, Ruediger.
And it is alarming that some users don't even dare to upload their images (any more) because they feel they are not up to the standards and fear they dont get recognition/visibility for their hard but of course imperfect work.
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), the average Joe backyarder will get increasingly "demoralized" (word borrowed from another poster in a different thread).
CS, John

10.79 Björn #... · view views · 3 likes
Excellent observation, Ruediger. And it is alarming that some users don't even dare to upload their images (any more) because they feel they are not up to the standards and fear they dont get recognition/visibility for their hard but of course imperfect work. 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), the average Joe backyarder will get increasingly "demoralized" (word borrowed from another poster in a different thread). CS, John "Demoralized" is one thing which is a shame on its own as it would "kill" a persons hobby. Even further, what if it leads to an unhealthy obsession about it just to catch an IOTD? @Salvatore Iovene, just a side node: Besides that this contradicts the claim of not being a competition, maybe the setting "I want to be excluded" should be consequential and allow people to completely opt out from competitive elements (IOTDs) and even likes. Maybe that's a way for some people to go, who want the "true" backyard astrophotography back? Björn Like

10.79

Björn

#...

· 3 likes

Excellent observation, Ruediger.
And it is alarming that some users don't even dare to upload their images (any more) because they feel they are not up to the standards and fear they dont get recognition/visibility for their hard but of course imperfect work.
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), the average Joe backyarder will get increasingly "demoralized" (word borrowed from another poster in a different thread).
CS, John

"Demoralized" is one thing which is a shame on its own as it would "kill" a persons hobby. Even further, what if it leads to an unhealthy obsession about it just to catch an IOTD?

@Salvatore Iovene, just a side node:

Besides that this contradicts the claim of not being a competition, maybe the setting "I want to be excluded" should be consequential and allow people to completely opt out from competitive elements (IOTDs) and even likes. Maybe that's a way for some people to go, who want the "true" backyard astrophotography back?

Björn

18.93 Ruediger #... · view views · 6 likes
@Salvatore Iovene, just a side node: Besides that this contradicts the claim of not being a competition, maybe the setting "I want to be excluded" should be consequential and allow people to completely opt out from competitive elements (IOTDs) and even likes. Maybe that's a way for some people to go, who want the "true" backyard astrophotography back? Björn Good catch! I have the impression, that this "rewarding system" is a exactly what it was denied to be: A competition or a ranking. Well, anyway. How ever you want to name it: If it works like a competition, feels like a competition and smells like a competition: So it is most likely one I think we should be honest to ourselves. Like

18.93

#...

· 6 likes

@Salvatore Iovene, just a side node:

Besides that this contradicts the claim of not being a competition, maybe the setting "I want to be excluded" should be consequential and allow people to completely opt out from competitive elements (IOTDs) and even likes. Maybe that's a way for some people to go, who want the "true" backyard astrophotography back?

Björn

Good catch! I have the impression, that this "rewarding system" is a exactly what it was denied to be: A competition or a ranking.
Well, anyway. How ever you want to name it: If it works like a competition, feels like a competition and smells like a competition: So it is most likely one

I think we should be honest to ourselves.

7.91 JohnHen #... · view views · 3 likes
Björn: ... maybe the setting "I want to be excluded" should be consequential and allow people to completely opt out from competitive elements (IOTDs) and even likes ... Hi Bjorn, i am not so sure about that. I think many like competition and recognition. But they would like to have _fair_ competition. CS, John Like

11.41 Timothy Martin #... · view views · 1 like
Timothy Martin: ... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ... Hi @Timothy Martin interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price? CS, John There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like. It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me. Like

11.41

#...

· 1 like

Timothy Martin:
... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ...

Hi @Timothy Martin
interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price?
CS, John

There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like.

It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me.

10.79 Björn #... · view views · 3 likes
Hi Bjorn, i am not so sure about that. I think many like competition and recognition. But they would like to have _fair_ competition. CS, John Hi John, Our statements don’t contradict each other. There are folks who play tennis without participating in a team or competition but just for fun but as they do, the don’t want to be thrown in the same box as those who want the competition and vice-versa. That’s why I think it should be an option to opt out. Maybe it would be a good idea to make one or more AB surveys? Björn Like

10.79

Björn

#...

· 3 likes

Hi Bjorn,
i am not so sure about that. I think many like competition and recognition.
But they would like to have _fair_ competition.
CS, John

Hi John,

Our statements don’t contradict each other. There are folks who play tennis without participating in a team or competition but just for fun but as they do, the don’t want to be thrown in the same box as those who want the competition and vice-versa.
That’s why I think it should be an option to opt out.

Maybe it would be a good idea to make one or more AB surveys?

Björn

18.93 Ruediger #... · view views · 3 likes
Björn: ... maybe the setting "I want to be excluded" should be consequential and allow people to completely opt out from competitive elements (IOTDs) and even likes ... Hi Bjorn, i am not so sure about that. I think many like competition and recognition. But they would like to have _fair_ competition. CS, John Very valid point, which I can fully support. If it is fair, than it can be motivating like sports. It drives you to improve. It is a long term motivation. But only if you are fighting in your weight class and not as feather weight vs. a heavy weight. Like

18.93

#...

· 3 likes

Björn:
... maybe the setting "I want to be excluded" should be consequential and allow people to completely opt out from competitive elements (IOTDs) and even likes ...

Hi Bjorn,
i am not so sure about that. I think many like competition and recognition.
But they would like to have _fair_ competition.
CS, John

Very valid point, which I can fully support.
If it is fair, than it can be motivating like sports. It drives you to improve. It is a long term motivation. But only if you are fighting in your weight class and not as feather weight vs. a heavy weight.

7.91 JohnHen #... · view views · 5 likes
Timothy Martin: Timothy Martin: ... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ... Hi @Timothy Martin interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price? CS, John There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like. It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me. It all boils down to where one believes drawing a line for categorisation is justified. If one believes it is fair that users purchase high-end data and compete with the backyarders who invest time and skills in acquiring their (imperfect) data, then that is a standpoint (but not mine). CS, John Edited ... Like

7.91

#...

· 5 likes

Timothy Martin:
Timothy Martin:
... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ...

Hi @Timothy Martin
interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price?
CS, John

There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like.

It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me.

It all boils down to where one believes drawing a line for categorisation is justified.
If one believes it is fair that users purchase high-end data and compete with the backyarders who invest time and skills in acquiring their (imperfect) data, then that is a standpoint (but not mine).
CS, John

Edited ...

11.41 Timothy Martin #... · view views
Timothy Martin: Timothy Martin: ... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ... Hi @Timothy Martin interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price? CS, John There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like. It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me. It all boils down to where one believes drawing a line for categorisation is justified. If one believes it is fair that users purchase high-end data and compete with the backyarders who invest time and skills in acquiring their (imperfect) data, then that is a standpoint (but not mine). CS, John John, I agree with you about professional data. It’s unfortunate, and fairly unusual that today’s IOTD came from TelescopeLive. I do think it should be a competition between amateurs. But beyond excluding images that were merely purchased, I think creating categories will dilute the value of the prize and create even more consternation than already exists. Again, it’s not up to me. Like

11.41

#...

Timothy Martin:
Timothy Martin:
... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ...

Hi @Timothy Martin
interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price?
CS, John

There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like.

It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me.

It all boils down to where one believes drawing a line for categorisation is justified.
If one believes it is fair that users purchase high-end data and compete with the backyarders who invest time and skills in acquiring their (imperfect) data, then that is a standpoint (but not mine).
CS, John

John, I agree with you about professional data. It’s unfortunate, and fairly unusual that today’s IOTD came from TelescopeLive. I do think it should be a competition between amateurs. But beyond excluding images that were merely purchased, I think creating categories will dilute the value of the prize and create even more consternation than already exists. Again, it’s not up to me.

18.93 Ruediger #... · view views · 4 likes
Timothy Martin: Timothy Martin: Timothy Martin: ... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ... Hi @Timothy Martin interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price? CS, John There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like. It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me. It all boils down to where one believes drawing a line for categorisation is justified. If one believes it is fair that users purchase high-end data and compete with the backyarders who invest time and skills in acquiring their (imperfect) data, then that is a standpoint (but not mine). CS, John John, I agree with you about professional data. It’s unfortunate, and fairly unusual that today’s IOTD came from TelescopeLive. I do think it should be a competition between amateurs. But beyond excluding images that were merely purchased, I think creating categories will dilute the value of the prize and create even more consternation than already exists. Again, it’s not up to me. Tim, are you really of the opinion, a prize is more value, when it was achieved in an uneven battle. e.g. a feather weight knocks out a heavy weight? Seriously? Vice versa! What is the value of a heavy weight champion beating up a feather weight? You negate any value of any prize achieved this way. That dilutes any value. Sorry - but I am totally shocked Edited ... Like

18.93

#...

· 4 likes

Timothy Martin:
Timothy Martin:
Timothy Martin:
... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ...

Hi @Timothy Martin
interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price?
CS, John

There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like.

It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me.

It all boils down to where one believes drawing a line for categorisation is justified.
If one believes it is fair that users purchase high-end data and compete with the backyarders who invest time and skills in acquiring their (imperfect) data, then that is a standpoint (but not mine).
CS, John

John, I agree with you about professional data. It’s unfortunate, and fairly unusual that today’s IOTD came from TelescopeLive. I do think it should be a competition between amateurs. But beyond excluding images that were merely purchased, I think creating categories will dilute the value of the prize and create even more consternation than already exists. Again, it’s not up to me.

Tim,
are you really of the opinion, a prize is more value, when it was achieved in an uneven battle. e.g. a feather weight knocks out a heavy weight? Seriously?
Vice versa! What is the value of a heavy weight champion beating up a feather weight? You negate any value of any prize achieved this way. That dilutes any value.
Sorry - but I am totally shocked

Edited ...

7.91 JohnHen #... · view views · 1 like
Timothy Martin: Timothy Martin: Timothy Martin: ... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ... Hi @Timothy Martin interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price? CS, John There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like. It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me. It all boils down to where one believes drawing a line for categorisation is justified. If one believes it is fair that users purchase high-end data and compete with the backyarders who invest time and skills in acquiring their (imperfect) data, then that is a standpoint (but not mine). CS, John John, I agree with you about professional data. It’s unfortunate, and fairly unusual that today’s IOTD came from TelescopeLive. I do think it should be a competition between amateurs. But beyond excluding images that were merely purchased, I think creating categories will dilute the value of the prize and create even more consternation than already exists. Again, it’s not up to me. * Hello Timothy, i do share and understand some of your concerns. For sure, if there are too many categories the prestigious IOTD looses at the end. Things need to be kept simple. My point is to achieve some adjustments reflecting new realities/trends in AB. I would hope that this thread proposes/collects new ideas and at the end the minimum common denominator is implemented and AB is successfully progressing. CS, John Edited ... Like

7.91

#...

· 1 like

Timothy Martin:
Timothy Martin:
Timothy Martin:
... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ...

Hi @Timothy Martin
interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price?
CS, John

There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like.

It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me.

It all boils down to where one believes drawing a line for categorisation is justified.
If one believes it is fair that users purchase high-end data and compete with the backyarders who invest time and skills in acquiring their (imperfect) data, then that is a standpoint (but not mine).
CS, John

John, I agree with you about professional data. It’s unfortunate, and fairly unusual that today’s IOTD came from TelescopeLive. I do think it should be a competition between amateurs. But beyond excluding images that were merely purchased, I think creating categories will dilute the value of the prize and create even more consternation than already exists. Again, it’s not up to me.

*

Hello Timothy,
i do share and understand some of your concerns. For sure, if there are too many categories the prestigious IOTD looses at the end. Things need to be kept simple. My point is to achieve some adjustments reflecting new realities/trends in AB. I would hope that this thread proposes/collects new ideas and at the end the minimum common denominator is implemented and AB is successfully progressing.
CS, John

Edited ...

0.90 Richard Smith #... · view views
Timothy Martin: Timothy Martin: ... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ... Hi @Timothy Martin interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price? CS, John There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like. It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me. The Nobel prize committee has also had to deal with murky divisions between categories (and this kind of supports Salvatore's concerns about defining categories) - there are a lot of chemists who have complained that the chemistry prize has become a biology prize (though this year's award does contradict this!) https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/has-the-chemistry-nobel-prize-really-become-the-biology-prize/4010993.article Like

0.90

Richard Smith

#...

Timothy Martin:
Timothy Martin:
... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ...

Hi @Timothy Martin
interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price?
CS, John

There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like.

It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me.

The Nobel prize committee has also had to deal with murky divisions between categories (and this kind of supports Salvatore's concerns about defining categories) - there are a lot of chemists who have complained that the chemistry prize has become a biology prize (though this year's award does contradict this!) https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/has-the-chemistry-nobel-prize-really-become-the-biology-prize/4010993.article

11.41 Timothy Martin #... · view views · 1 like
Ruediger: Timothy Martin: Timothy Martin: Timothy Martin: ... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ... Hi @Timothy Martin interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price? CS, John There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like. It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me. It all boils down to where one believes drawing a line for categorisation is justified. If one believes it is fair that users purchase high-end data and compete with the backyarders who invest time and skills in acquiring their (imperfect) data, then that is a standpoint (but not mine). CS, John John, I agree with you about professional data. It’s unfortunate, and fairly unusual that today’s IOTD came from TelescopeLive. I do think it should be a competition between amateurs. But beyond excluding images that were merely purchased, I think creating categories will dilute the value of the prize and create even more consternation than already exists. Again, it’s not up to me. Tim, are you really of the opinion, a prize is more value, when it was achieved in an uneven battle. e.g. a feather weight knocks out a heavy weight? Seriously? Vice versa! What is the value of a heavy weight champion beating up a feather weight? You negate any value of any prize achieved this way. That dilutes any value. Sorry - but I am totally shocked I disagree. If the award is for best amateur picture of the day, then let it be for the best amateur picture of the day. I know a number of people who have won IOTDs with far less than high-end gear. And I’ve seen plenty of images from CDK17s and 24s that weren’t that good. Chad Leader, for example, has won 2 IOTDs and more than 20 TPs with a C8, an EQ6-R, and an ASI294 from a Bortle 8 back yard. And Doug Struble has been rocking this Casba for years with a Stellarvue SVX102 in his Detroit back yard with patience, skill, and tenacity. There are many such examples. Having big-name gear at Obstech doesn’t turn you into a heavyweight. https://www.astrobin.com/users/chadleader/ https://www.astrobin.com/users/dugstruble/ Edited to add: Btw, I love your image of WeBo1. It’s so darn cool! Edited ... Like

11.41

#...

· 1 like

Ruediger:
Timothy Martin:
Timothy Martin:
Timothy Martin:
... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ...

Hi @Timothy Martin
interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price?
CS, John

There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like.

It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me.

It all boils down to where one believes drawing a line for categorisation is justified.
If one believes it is fair that users purchase high-end data and compete with the backyarders who invest time and skills in acquiring their (imperfect) data, then that is a standpoint (but not mine).
CS, John

John, I agree with you about professional data. It’s unfortunate, and fairly unusual that today’s IOTD came from TelescopeLive. I do think it should be a competition between amateurs. But beyond excluding images that were merely purchased, I think creating categories will dilute the value of the prize and create even more consternation than already exists. Again, it’s not up to me.

Tim,
are you really of the opinion, a prize is more value, when it was achieved in an uneven battle. e.g. a feather weight knocks out a heavy weight? Seriously?
Vice versa! What is the value of a heavy weight champion beating up a feather weight? You negate any value of any prize achieved this way. That dilutes any value.
Sorry - but I am totally shocked

I disagree. If the award is for best amateur picture of the day, then let it be for the best amateur picture of the day. I know a number of people who have won IOTDs with far less than high-end gear. And I’ve seen plenty of images from CDK17s and 24s that weren’t that good.

Chad Leader, for example, has won 2 IOTDs and more than 20 TPs with a C8, an EQ6-R, and an ASI294 from a Bortle 8 back yard. And Doug Struble has been rocking this Casba for years with a Stellarvue SVX102 in his Detroit back yard with patience, skill, and tenacity. There are many such examples. Having big-name gear at Obstech doesn’t turn you into a heavyweight.

https://www.astrobin.com/users/chadleader/

https://www.astrobin.com/users/dugstruble/

Edited to add: Btw, I love your image of WeBo1. It’s so darn cool!

Edited ...

7.91 JohnHen #... · view views · 2 likes
Timothy Martin: I disagree. If the award is for best amateur picture of the day, then let it be for the best amateur picture of the day. I know a number of people who have won IOTDs with far less than high-end gear. And I’ve seen plenty of images from CDK17s and 24s that weren’t that good. Chad Leader, for example, has won 2 IOTDs and more than 20 TPs with a C8, an EQ6-R, and an ASI294 from a Bortle 8 back yard. And Doug Struble has been rocking this Casba for years with a Stellarvue SVX102 in his Detroit back yard with patience, skill, and tenacity. There are many such examples. Having big-name gear at Obstech doesn’t turn you into a heavyweight. Here are some facts about AstroBin: ~70% of images are from backyards but they win ~37% of IOTD ~8% are from remote observatories but they win ~37.5% of IOTD In other words, the chance to win IOTD with remote is approx. 9x higher than from backyard. CS, John P.S.: I want to emphasise that i also have highest respect for imagers who have their _own_ gear in remote places because they typically take tremendous effort in time and money to setup/maintain their gear and acquire their data (but i have limited understanding when data is just _purchased_ and wins IOTD) Edited ... Like

7.91

#...

· 2 likes

Timothy Martin:
I disagree. If the award is for best amateur picture of the day, then let it be for the best amateur picture of the day. I know a number of people who have won IOTDs with far less than high-end gear. And I’ve seen plenty of images from CDK17s and 24s that weren’t that good.

Chad Leader, for example, has won 2 IOTDs and more than 20 TPs with a C8, an EQ6-R, and an ASI294 from a Bortle 8 back yard. And Doug Struble has been rocking this Casba for years with a Stellarvue SVX102 in his Detroit back yard with patience, skill, and tenacity. There are many such examples. Having big-name gear at Obstech doesn’t turn you into a heavyweight.

Here are some facts about AstroBin:
~70% of images are from backyards but they win ~37% of IOTD
~8% are from remote observatories but they win ~37.5% of IOTD

In other words, the chance to win IOTD with remote is approx. 9x higher than from backyard.

CS, John

P.S.: I want to emphasise that i also have highest respect for imagers who have their _own_ gear in remote places because they typically take tremendous effort in time and money to setup/maintain their gear and acquire their data (but i have limited understanding when data is just _purchased_ and wins IOTD)

Edited ...

18.93 Ruediger #... · view views · 4 likes
Timothy Martin: Ruediger: Timothy Martin: Timothy Martin: Timothy Martin: ... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ... Hi @Timothy Martin interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price? CS, John There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like. It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me. It all boils down to where one believes drawing a line for categorisation is justified. If one believes it is fair that users purchase high-end data and compete with the backyarders who invest time and skills in acquiring their (imperfect) data, then that is a standpoint (but not mine). CS, John John, I agree with you about professional data. It’s unfortunate, and fairly unusual that today’s IOTD came from TelescopeLive. I do think it should be a competition between amateurs. But beyond excluding images that were merely purchased, I think creating categories will dilute the value of the prize and create even more consternation than already exists. Again, it’s not up to me. Tim, are you really of the opinion, a prize is more value, when it was achieved in an uneven battle. e.g. a feather weight knocks out a heavy weight? Seriously? Vice versa! What is the value of a heavy weight champion beating up a feather weight? You negate any value of any prize achieved this way. That dilutes any value. Sorry - but I am totally shocked I disagree. If the award is for best amateur picture of the day, then let it be for the best amateur picture of the day. I know a number of people who have won IOTDs with far less than high-end gear. And I’ve seen plenty of images from CDK17s and 24s that weren’t that good. Chad Leader, for example, has won 2 IOTDs and more than 20 TPs with a C8, an EQ6-R, and an ASI294 from a Bortle 8 back yard. And Doug Struble has been rocking this Casba for years with a Stellarvue SVX102 in his Detroit back yard with patience, skill, and tenacity. There are many such examples. Having big-name gear at Obstech doesn’t turn you into a heavyweight. https://www.astrobin.com/users/chadleader/ https://www.astrobin.com/users/dugstruble/ Sorry, but I think you missed the point. It is less about the equipment used, but about: 1. Buying data and let others master the setup for you 2. Host in remote locations These two points make the decisive difference to a backyard AP, who is shooting under bortle 6 and more and trouble shoots all his problems himself. But also I want to make a point very clear: I have highest respect about the guys shipping their equipment to remote site. This is a real challenge and huge effort. Million Kudos! But they have advanced to a different league they are playing in! Like

18.93

#...

· 4 likes

Timothy Martin:
Ruediger:
Timothy Martin:
Timothy Martin:
Timothy Martin:
... The reason for that is the excellence of the competition itself—its construction, operation, and results. There’s a reason, for example, that Nobel prizes ...

Hi @Timothy Martin
interesting you point to prestigious prizes like the Nobel Price to justify that AB should stay with just one category. But unlike AB, the Nobel Price has six categories! Or, would we consider it fair if the best work in physics had to compete with the best work in economics for just one Nobel Price?
CS, John

There’s only one prize for Physics. you might more of a point if there were separate Nobel prizes for surface physics, particle physics, and the like.

It’s okay with me if the Astrobin powers that be want to dilute IOTD so that it loses some amount of whatever prestige it currently has. It’s not up to me.

It all boils down to where one believes drawing a line for categorisation is justified.
If one believes it is fair that users purchase high-end data and compete with the backyarders who invest time and skills in acquiring their (imperfect) data, then that is a standpoint (but not mine).
CS, John

John, I agree with you about professional data. It’s unfortunate, and fairly unusual that today’s IOTD came from TelescopeLive. I do think it should be a competition between amateurs. But beyond excluding images that were merely purchased, I think creating categories will dilute the value of the prize and create even more consternation than already exists. Again, it’s not up to me.

Tim,
are you really of the opinion, a prize is more value, when it was achieved in an uneven battle. e.g. a feather weight knocks out a heavy weight? Seriously?
Vice versa! What is the value of a heavy weight champion beating up a feather weight? You negate any value of any prize achieved this way. That dilutes any value.
Sorry - but I am totally shocked

I disagree. If the award is for best amateur picture of the day, then let it be for the best amateur picture of the day. I know a number of people who have won IOTDs with far less than high-end gear. And I’ve seen plenty of images from CDK17s and 24s that weren’t that good.

Chad Leader, for example, has won 2 IOTDs and more than 20 TPs with a C8, an EQ6-R, and an ASI294 from a Bortle 8 back yard. And Doug Struble has been rocking this Casba for years with a Stellarvue SVX102 in his Detroit back yard with patience, skill, and tenacity. There are many such examples. Having big-name gear at Obstech doesn’t turn you into a heavyweight.

https://www.astrobin.com/users/chadleader/

https://www.astrobin.com/users/dugstruble/

Sorry, but I think you missed the point. It is less about the equipment used, but about:

1. Buying data and let others master the setup for you
2. Host in remote locations

These two points make the decisive difference to a backyard AP, who is shooting under bortle 6 and more and trouble shoots all his problems himself.

But also I want to make a point very clear:
I have highest respect about the guys shipping their equipment to remote site. This is a real challenge and huge effort. Million Kudos!
But they have advanced to a different league they are playing in!

3.31 Richard Rice #... · view views
Personally I love to see the incredible images submitted by those who have decided to use only the highest end equipment situated in the darkest skies, and would hate to see their creativity stifled. However I would like to see a mechanism in place to encourage others. Perhaps one way forward, would to be to leave the IOTD as it is, but allow a community vote. If all images submitted during a set period went on to a page accessed from the home page, they could be viewed and at the end of the following week voted on by the community. i.e All images submitted during week 21 are posted at the start of week 22 and remain until the end of week 22 during which time each participating subscriber can vote for one. The webpage is then replaced by images submitted during week 22. This would not solve the clear divisions surrounding remote imaging but it would be a neat way to view the work submitted over a single week and offer an opportunity for all of us to vote on what we think is most deserving. Creating in affect the average astrophotographer. This would work best if full disclosure of equipment and integration were a prerequisite for submission. I also think that the submissions could be split between DSLR using DSLR lens, and all others. Clearly this is not going to satisfy everybody but I hope it is at least food for thought. Like

3.31

Richard Rice

#...

Personally I love to see the incredible images submitted by those who have decided to use only the highest end equipment situated in the darkest skies, and would hate to see their creativity stifled. However I would like to see a mechanism in place to encourage others.

Perhaps one way forward, would to be to leave the IOTD as it is, but allow a community vote. If all images submitted during a set period went on to a page accessed from the home page, they could be viewed and at the end of the following week voted on by the community.

i.e All images submitted during week 21 are posted at the start of week 22 and remain until the end of week 22 during which time each participating subscriber can vote for one. The webpage is then replaced by images submitted during week 22.

This would not solve the clear divisions surrounding remote imaging but it would be a neat way to view the work submitted over a single week and offer an opportunity for all of us to vote on what we think is most deserving. Creating in affect the average astrophotographer.

This would work best if full disclosure of equipment and integration were a prerequisite for submission.

I also think that the submissions could be split between DSLR using DSLR lens, and all others. Clearly this is not going to satisfy everybody but I hope it is at least food for thought.

7.91 JohnHen #... · view views
Richard Rice: Personally I love to see the incredible images submitted by those who have decided to use only the highest end equipment situated in the darkest skies, and would hate to see their creativity stifled. However I would like to see a mechanism in place to encourage others. Perhaps one way forward, would to be to leave the IOTD as it is, but allow a community vote. If all images submitted during a set period went on to a page accessed from the home page, they could be viewed and at the end of the following week voted on by the community. i.e All images submitted during week 21 are posted at the start of week 22 and remain until the end of week 22 during which time each participating subscriber can vote for one. The webpage is then replaced by images submitted during week 22. This would not solve the clear divisions surrounding remote imaging but it would be a neat way to view the work submitted over a single week and offer an opportunity for all of us to vote on what we think is most deserving. Creating in affect the average astrophotographer. This would work best if full disclosure of equipment and integration were a prerequisite for submission. I also think that the submissions could be split between DSLR using DSLR lens, and all others. Clearly this is not going to satisfy everybody but I hope it is at least food for thought. Hi Richard, your idea of "community vote" will likely result in winners who have the largest numbers of followers. When you check the "recent images" page where all images are chronologically sorted (by publication time) and are accessible for all AB users, you will find exactly that: Most likes always go to images of users with the highest number of followers. AB's IOTD process is indeed quite thoughtful and elaborate with submitters, reviewers and judges. Sometimes, IOTD goes to images with only a few likes (fully justified). This shows one of the strengths of the current IOTD process. It is, to my mind, the most advanced selection process in all astro image awards (incl. APOD). CS, John Like

7.91