7.67
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Arun H: Categories for subject type would be neat, but if I was a guessing man there probably wont be any budging on categories based on sky conditions or gear. You might have to wait for the fabled custom competitions for that. It would be cool if these custom competitions could become feeders for IotD though. Like, maybe some well managed competitions could have their winners go straight to the Judges for IotD consideration or something. I think the Judges would appreciate this because they would have more of a variety to choose from. For categories you could have different 'queues'  So instead of a submission queue you might have a deep space queue, a solar queue, etc... with voting slots and requirements tailored to the expected amount of images that go into each category. I don't think this would increase the workload for anyone because its just the same images separated into categories, but it would put more of a focus on image types, so you are not scratching your head trying to compare apples to oranges (aka DSO's to lunar craters). |
7.90
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
So instead of a submission queue you might have a deep space queue, a solar queue, etc... with voting slots and requirements tailored to the expected amount of images that go into each category. I don't think this would increase the workload for anyone because its just the same images separated into categories, but it would put more of a focus on image types, so you are not scratching your head trying to compare apples to oranges (aka DSO's to lunar craters). Which is exactly what I proposed several dozen messages ago. It is still in the "unlikely to happen" category but at least not in the "no-friggin'-way" category. |
 #...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
In a way you can already filter Top Picks and Top Pick Nominations by some category. I can easily add Subject Type to that menu. However, adding multiple parallel paths for each such categories is another way of saying "we want more top picks". Btw, we are getting more Top Picks now that I added more reviewers and more slots (it's ramping up, it still takes a while) and I already received the first complaint about a Top Pick not being up to par, as I expected. Having more Top Pick will, by definition, lower the bar. That is, unless we figure out a perfect, infallible process that always satisfies 100% of the audience... Going back to the custom community contest module that I have mentioned a few times (and I understand why it's now "fabled"... I've been promising for a while now but I've been having too many things taking a higher priority), that is definitely for me a way to experiment with different voting mechanisms, and I can see, in the future, if we find something better on the side, how the IOTD/TP might migrate to that. Going and changing things _radically_ with the IOTD/TP at the moment would be a very poor choice for AstroBin, and a risky move for me personally. |
13.12
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Arun H: Hi, this thread is still alive... If I return the argument : by my count, much fewer people (based on the same number of likes on some of these posts) passionately want to change what they see as not working for them. Let's all move on... PS: today's IOTD is a Galaxy (not dust) with a DIY scope 😉 JF |
11.99
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Categories for subject type would be neat, but if I was a guessing man there probably wont be any budging on categories based on sky conditions or gear. Categories by subject type at the TPN level (NOT at the Top Pick or IOTD level) is exactly what I am proposing. The only three logical categories are NB, broadband, solar. Not sky conditions. Doing this allows more space at the TPN level for images taken using much cheaper equipment and from a greater spectrum of locations. I know several imagers who image from suburban locations and take great narrowband images - but these narrowband images cannot compete with broadband images taken from Bortle 1 or 2 locations, using 24" or even 1 meter scopes, on high mountaintops in Chile, or by people fortunate enough to live in these type of locations. The overall quality of TPNs would not change because you'd still have the same requirement of three submitters promoting an image, and submitters are under no compulsion to fill all their slots. It will, however, mean that, at the lower level, more good narrow band images and images taken in LP conditions using inexpensive equipment could be in consideration for TP or even IOTD. Since the total number of TPs does not change, and the IOTD is still selected from the TPs, the quality of the IOTD and TPs is not diluted. Those 24" and 1 meter exceptional images would still continue to get Top Picks and IOTDs. |
|
11.99
#...
·
|
|---|
Jeffbax Velocicaptor: The point here is that the total number of people participating and engaged is small compared to the total number of subscribers. The points raised are real. There is at least some agreement that it is practical. A good way to do this would be to engage with the broader community, not debate between 20 people. As I recall - when the decision was made to allow judges to compete for IOTD (though obviously not upvote their own images), the debate was had with the entire community. |
6.68
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Arun H: Maybe the vast majority of subscribers just don't care. They read and move on. "Non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa..." Dante, Divina Commendia, Canto III. |
|
11.99
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Maybe the vast majority of subscribers just don't care. They read and move on. Or are just beaten down because they see no path to changes. In any case, why make that assumption when there is an easy way to find out? By the way, @Salvatore Iovene , I do respect that this way not be possible in the immediate future due to other priorities. What I am pushing back against is that it isn't possible at all. |
|
7.90
#...
·
|
|---|
Maybe the vast majority of subscribers just don't care. They read and move on. I was thinking of the same passage in Dante's Commedia while reading these exchanges a while aback... |
11.41
#...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
Chris White- Overcast Observatory: Because that poster started off by saying that any push-back regarding the time commitment he was demanding was just a "lame excuse." He also strongly implied, among other things, that this effort lacks legitimacy. Both were false assertions delivered in a condescending manner. Meanwhile, if you'll recall, this entire thread started with a title that insulted and impugned the integrity of the 80 or so people who give a lot of their time to the IOTD process without compensation. Other unfounded accusations have included bias, self-serving motivation, unfairness, recalcitrance, ignorance, and incompetence. So yeah, some of us might get a little salty in the face of that ridiculousness from a few disgruntled sources. |
|
11.41
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Arun H:Categories for subject type would be neat, but if I was a guessing man there probably wont be any budging on categories based on sky conditions or gear. This is approaching a more workable suggestion than I've seen so far in this thread. It's not without merit, but it still raises difficulties (btw, I thought you originally proposed "solar system" rather than just "solar"). @SemiPro has taken it a step further by suggesting that the individualized contest function Salvatore is planning could inform and perhaps feed some process along these lines. But that could take a while. In the meantime, as a practical matter, we're largely stuck with what we have, which I still contend is a fair process that produces the premier gallery of amateur images on the web. Also, remember that good narrowband images taken with modest gear in difficult situations are already in consideration for TP and IOTD and often make the grade. |
|
11.99
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Timothy Martin: They do. Anything different than what we do today raises difficulties. If it was trivial, it would be done. But I believe that there are significant benefits to it as we get to increasing disparity in the locations from which images are taken and the disparity in the investment. And it can be done without sacrificing the overall mission of IOTD or ultimate quality. |
|
7.67
#...
·
|
|---|
Salvatore Iovene: Hey sorry, I could not resist! Salvatore Iovene: I guess in this scenario, we would take the six voting slots and break them up, so you would have maybe 4 for DSOs, 1 for lunar/solar, and 1 for planetary. The idea is just to make the categories more focused instead of these images all competing against each other. It also goes without saying that this is me just brainstorming and I am not suggesting something like this should become a high priority at the moment. |
|
7.67
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Arun H: I would actually extend it all the way to TPs. They would only get pooled together at the final stage when the judges decide on an IotD. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of having DSOs separated from solar objects at the very least. I think it would be easier to judge lunar/planetary/solar images if they were not going up against DSOs. Salvatore Iovene: Since I am rattling off ideas, I have thought about changing how the support function works. Maybe inquiries into IotD are sent to not only yourself but maybe the Judges, or designated support volunteers. Not sure if this is something that people would want to take up, but it might spread the load a bit when dealing with IotD complaints. |
7.91
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Arun H: This is a great idea that ticks many boxes. I would propose slight changes (and i give reasons): - leave the six voting slots of submitters as they are i.e. any kind of images can go to these six slots - add two additional slots, one reserved for NB and one reserved for solar Reasoning: - breaking up the existing six slots with quotas for BB, NB and solar could actually lead to lesser promotions because of fragmentation - having two more slots as opposed to the existing six, is no problem. At least from my submitter's point of view i could easily add two more images without compromising quality (i typically fill all my currently available six slots and often wish for more). Such a solution has many advantages: - it does not take away anything from any group of imagers - instead it adds. And as we have heard, there is a large demand for increased recognition - plus, it leaves the IOTD process intact as Arun has pointed out. It is also likely to be implemented with reasonable effort (well, only Salvatore can comment here) - last but not least it could be the solution for the long-awaited "contests" Cheers, John |
|
11.99
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
Reasoning: I like the idea of having a set of common slots where any image of any type could be promoted and another set of slots dedicated specifically for narrowband and solar system, both of which can be taken from a broader range of places. There could be several models we could debate:
Either model puts a bit more focus on the type of images I believe a large number of people are taking today using relatively inexpensive equipment and from light polluted locations. I did not propose expanding this to Top Picks at this point because we may not have the appetite for too much change. Plus it is always a good idea to start small and expand (or backtrack if it does not work the way intended). I would not, however, oppose such a change. I do think the IOTD should be sacrosanct. As an aside - it is interesting how, once we break the paradigm of "no change is possible", we start to have reasonable and rational ideas being debated. This is at least a positive discussion, respectful of differing perspectives and concerns. |
 #...
·
|
|---|
Timothy Martin:Chris White- Overcast Observatory:  |
7.33
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
| Post removed by moderator on May 8th, 2024 at 8:33 PM UTC. |
11.35
#...
·
|
|---|
| https://welcome.astrobin.com/iotd#rules |
5.63
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Luka Poropat: I have to say, at a large view this image is awesome. zooming in it has a ton of problems. The weird color star halos are not great. I don't really know what the judges are looking at. |
|
5.63
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Dan Kearl: I think the best thing this site could add is a REAL critique forum so people could load these images and get feedback before they are entered into the contests. Timothy Martin could have easily corrected some of this before submission. I can't look at my images with any objectivity after I process them 10 times. Other eyes are critical. |
|
11.99
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
There has been a lot of criticism and perhaps harsh words exchanged here. So, maybe it is fair to highlight some of the things the process gets right. These two recent images: https://astrob.in/14oin5/D/ https://astrob.in/25m9zy/0/ are excellent examples of beautiful and really well taken and processed compositions that deserve the attention they were given. They are also images that many imagers can aspire to take with reasonable effort. Today's in particular is one I would have missed had it not been awarded the IOTD. Such improvements as have been suggested not just to the IOTD but also to the TPN and TP process are with the intent of better highlighting this kind of work. Not, as has been suggested here are in other places, because we are envious of those who have won these awards. |
1.51
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Timothy Martin:Chris White- Overcast Observatory: This immensely long 9-page thread discussing the inadequacies of the IOTD process is evident enough (proof) that its legitimacy is in serious question. Just because you disagree with facts, doesn't make is sarcasm. Since some of you are overly defensive and lack the ability to discuss legitimate points in a reasonable and logical way (without getting your sensitive feelings hurt), I will be the bigger man and drop out of this embarrassing thread, which will result in zero change because you fear it. To those who say they can't write a single sentence of feedback or use a scoring card (because it takes too long), but can argue back and forth on here day after day endlessly . . . how utterly sad. NOTE: none of my previous words were intended as sarcasm or to hurt anyone's feelings or threaten their personal paradigm. Their intent is purely an attempt to offer ideas to provoke thoughtful conversation in the hopes it may bring about positive change. Obviously, this is moot if you already decided you will never change, and any mention of change threatens your reality. If you want to prove you are the better man, try not responding (I freely give you the last word). This needs to end. Goodbye. |
|
7.67
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Dan Kearl: You can go look at what stays as a Top Pick vs what becomes IotD. You can also look at what stays as a Top Pick Nomination versus what becomes a Top Pick as well. In my subjective opinion, it goes from TPN (Lots of unique images) -> TP (Very formulaic) -> IotD (Unique again). At a glance if you told me the Top Pick gallery was all from the same person, I would believe you. That is what I mean by formulaic. This TPN and IotD galleries do not have this problem. From here I can speculate depending on which side of the debate I want to support:
I'll leave that choice up to the reader, but in my own opinion it's clear that there is a chasm in judging criteria between those at the reviewing stage vs those at the IotD stage. The best you can do structurally is to import the process that exists at the TPN level to the TP level that seems to be the one change that has broad support in this thread. If both sets of Reviewers get to see an image, then that at least ensures that an image gets its due consideration. You would also get Top Picks chosen by a more diverse set of Reviewers which would maybe alleviate some of the problems the Judges face with a small selection size.  This is what we want to avoid. You don't want people wondering what would of happened if they got those additional views. I would rather have 80-100% views and no votes, than the 2 and 50% views I got. If we want to talk about legitimacy, I have to wonder how only being seen by half of the Reviewers who got my image is legitimate. Arun H: And we cannot forget that for the most part, the IotDs that are chosen are pretty well done! |
|
11.99
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
There are two improvements that I’d like to propose outside of categories:
|
