10.79
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
| @SemiPro, how did you determine these probabilities in your table? I‘m curious to learn how you did it, as from the data of the IOTD-statistics, it doesn’t seem to follow. Personally, I wouldn’t combine traveler and backyard as from all analysis it seems to boil down to the fact that a major factor is the location and not so much gear, skill or to some degree sky condition (namely seeing). There are several people here that produce IOTDs fairly often. Looking at their gallery reveals that they produce very good images on a weekly or bi-weekly basis given the access to excellent locations. A traveler with his 500€ gear is also biased w.r.t. location. A pure backyarder has a much lower rate of producing an image and therefore a lower chance of submitting a high quality image. Hence, it seems to me understandable that as a majority of folks here are backyard astronomers they are interested in „backyard“ IOTDs and not so much in the pure high quality „business“ which you could easily get from HST, JWST. Given an unbiased selection and award process (assumption, not conclusion), the backyard astronomers are entering the „race“ with a set parking brake, metaphorically speaking. Therefore, a category based approach could possibly help on that for people that are still interested in a award process. Björn |
7.67
#...
·
|
|---|
Björn: I used the advanced search function, and started searching for awarded images with my specified time frame. I have a method for counting all the pages (on my screen there are 60 images a page, and 6 images a row). From there is just a matter of plugging things into excel. The data won't match up with the IotD stats on the main page because it pulls from the previous 365 days, while I decided to pull it from September 2022 to September 2023 to ensure all the data was set in stone if you will. I have to imagine the IotD stats on the front pages are missing a months-worth of data because the awards are not finalized for the last few weeks. Björn: I think it is fair to combine them, given that regardless of how often someone can travel to their site or how close it is, they still have to pack all their stuff up, travel, and set up for the night. It's not like anyone is going out to their closest national park to set up 24" RC telescopes or anything like that. It has to be kept light. Just due to the nature of having to keep their equipment portable, they are giving up a lot of qualities actual backyard and remote setups might enjoy, such as sturdy piers, an observatory, or a rigorously automated system. Some of my images fall under the traveler category because I want to escape my lame bortle 8 skies and spend a night or two in bortle 2-4 skies if I can. |
|
10.79
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
I used the advanced search function, and started searching for awarded images with my specified time frame. I have a method for counting all the pages (on my screen there are 60 images a page, and 6 images a row). From there is just a matter of plugging things into excel. Seems to be a viable approach to get to the numbers. It would be a question for @Salvatore Iovene how the stats are calculated in order to see how it would differ from a manual search. |
 #...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Björn: If you're interested in seeing backyard images, there still no better place than AstroBin. Use the search engine and filter by backyard only! The ability to search and filter is the ENTIRE reason why I built AstroBin, and why there are so many fields in the image data form :-) Seems to me, and I'm getting sick of repeating this thing (which is also in the IOTD FAQ), the moment there is a "Backyard" category for the IOTD/TP, you or some other will come to me and go like "oh but waiiiiiiit a second, this guy actually has a backyard in Bortle 1, it's not fair! You should split it by the 10 Bortle classes, in 10 different categories! They do weight classes in boxing, and F1 cars don't race against Formula Vee!". Then the moment I do that, the sandbagging will begin (people intentially misreporting their Bortle class to improve their chances). Then there will be the accusation of cheating. Can you imagine the ensuing toxicity? There has been now so much data presented, and so much argumentation why IOTD/TP will not be split in categories. It's time to give it a rest. In the past 8 or 9 years I've heard the same arguments over and over again and they all fall short of reality, invariably. The good thing is that 99% of the times they come from somebody new to AstroBin, or to astrophotography, or simply to the IOTD/TP, who dosn't know that this has been argued before. The reasons why splitting the IOTD/TP in categories is a bad idea are not immediately apparent, that's why I have a FAQ now so I can direct them. It's awesome that most of the people who reach out to me privately to about this, they end up saying "oh, that makes sense, I didn't think of it this way" after reading the FAQ. There's a small faction of hardcore naysayers tho, some of which in this thread. I do thank them, because all feedback is good feedback for me. And over the years I've made lots of improvements to the IOTD/TP process thanks exactly to them! So I'm not discarding your ideas, your value and your contribution, which I truly appreciate. However, this particular horse is dead. Stop beating it please. |
11.99
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Salvatore Iovene: Hi Sal - I completely understand this. At the end of the day, it is less about backyard versus remote versus traveller etc. We all know that, almost by definition, astrophotography depends on access to clear, dark conditions, and the better those conditions, the better the image (all else being equal). So it seems the IOTD is doing exactly what it is designed to do, and the changes you have put in place to make it better are appreciated. It serves its intended purpose, it is useful and respected, so it makes sense to leave its scope unchanged but drive improvements within its scope as you are doing now. I personally have no particular desire to "compete" with X, Y, or Z. My main desire is to make sure I am taking the best images I can, given the constraints of life. Comparing my images to those taken at Bortle 1 sites on high mountains at Chile isn't particularly useful (to me) in this regard, although I absolutely do not dispute they should be recognized on this site, are useful to many others, and advance amateur astrophotography. What I am really asking for, I suppose, is the ability to learn from imagers whose conditions resemble my own. Perhaps self administered groupings of some fashion outside the current IOTD process, as suggested by @Anthony Quintile are the answer, rather than endlessly debating modifying a current process that is useful and respected, should be preserved and improved within its desired purpose, but was never designed with this intent in mind. |
