Hello, Asteroid Zoo!

by DZM admin

Hi Asteroid Zoo Zooites (or at least those of you I haven’t met through other projects!)

My name is Darren--DZM here on Talk--and I've just joined the Zooniverse team. I'm working on a few projects, first and foremost an overhaul of the Talk system. In particular, I’m interested in working to build a unified Zooniverse Talk within which individual project forums are nested.

If you have any additional ideas for how Talk can be improved, I’d love to know! I’ll also be around these boards as often as possible, looking for any other ways in which I can help out, so I’m always interested in hearing from you all.

I should admit that I don’t have any type of science or astronomy background, but I’d still like to participate in this Milky Way Project wherever possible! Take any of my comments for what they are--an amateur’s—but I am looking forward to learning from all of you!

Anyway, I’ll be around and checking back, so thoughts, comments, concerns, anything like that are always welcome.

See you around!

DZM

Posted October 9, 2014 3:33 PM
by CTidwell3

One bug that I noticed a while ago that you might be able to check out has to do with how hashtags work in this Talk system when related for searching for them after they have been added. I wrote up a post about this that you can find below:

http://talk.asteroidzoo.org/#/boards/BAZ0000001/discussions/DAZ00002y4

Also, its great that talk about an object can be linked to with a shortcut like this:

AAZ00004mu

But there is no equivilent shortcut for discussion thread like using just DAZ00002y4

Posted October 9, 2014 4:34 PM
by DZM admin

Both excellent ideas; thank you! I will add them to the list of things to continue for the new Talk.

Nice to meet you, @CTidwell3 !

Posted October 9, 2014 5:41 PM
by p.titchin in response to DZM's comment.

Hi again, just so you can see I do 'travel' the zooniverse- not just P4, 😃 ~Pete

Posted October 10, 2014 8:32 AM
by DZM admin

It's great to see that we have many cross-project power users! I definitely hope that we can make traveling the Zooniverse, and especially Zooniverse Talks, a bit easier for you and other such folk. 😃

Posted October 10, 2014 12:36 PM
by Dr.Asteroid scientist, admin

Welcome to AsteroidZoo. Glad to have you onboard!

Posted October 14, 2014 9:00 PM
by DZM admin

Thank you, Dr. Asteroid! 😃

Posted October 15, 2014 1:43 PM
by DZM admin

If anyone would like to know a bit more about me and my role, there's a new Zooniverse blog post up from Chris Lintott introducing me.

Feel free to check it out, and I'm happy to answer any additional questions that you might have! 😃

Posted October 16, 2014 3:25 PM
by bdp003

To developer team, Heath Van Singel.

Hello.

Thank you for great science project.

I would like to make ollowing improvement for faster results:

Move the Cycle buttom + what do you see...

to the bottom right, tightly close to finnish buttom.

This will limit the mouse movements and speed up A LOT!

Regards
Bengt de Paulis
Finland

Posted December 27, 2014 6:20 AM
by nicro46

Today I watched my image n. 10,000, I think it's time to make a small budget and statistics. I attend Asteroidzoo since he left, I've worked with and with GalaxyZoo Spacewarps, I have experience of observation and photography with the telescope.
I declare that I have used so far only the Cycle for research, finding Fliker too lengthy and cumbersome for the view. Here is my results, I hope they can be useful to those who manage the system.

Candidates new asteroids already observed by others: 14

Candidates new asteroids observed first: 7

Already known asteroids observed by others: 4

Known asteroids observed first: 40

First consideration: 21 candidates out of 10,000 images viewed
Second: I reported 40 known asteroids and to this day my report remained the only, only four cases were already reported by others.

Many asteroids are already known that I could not see, I think at least a hundred, most definitely my fault but most difficult to detect because for various reasons: poor lighting, distance or volume small, slow-moving or non-orthogonal direction .
I would appreciate very much to have the opinion and any comparison of data with those who used the method mainly Fliker (I think I try to use them both in the future, even if it cost me a lot more time), to be able to realistically assess whether this method will fail to find the most asteroids already known and therefore also the potential "not" known. In this regard it would be useful to have, at least sometimes, signaling that the image you are opening contains an asteroid, so you can try with the best method, experiencing and refining the technique.

Posted January 19, 2015 7:32 PM
by DZM admin in response to nicro46's comment.

In other projects, we evaluate accuracy using tests of simulated data to see how well volunteers are spotting things like planets (Planet Hunters) and off-center vertices (Higgs Hunters).

But I imagine that it's not feasible to create simulated asteroids here. Certainly an interesting suggestion you have, but it'd really be up to the science team to decide if that would actually help them reach their science goals.

Either way, congrats on 10,000 classifications! That by itself represents .64% of the total number of classifications done on Asteroid Zoo. You're a star! (Or, well, an asteroid! 😃 )

Posted January 21, 2015 4:48 PM
by nicro46

DZM Many thanks for your appreciation. I started a new phase in which I examine all sets with the flicker, negatively, to see if I can see a greater number of asteroids, especially those already known and reported by the program.
In this regard, my suggestion, for what it's worth, was to point out some of these, now rimmed green, even on the first screen, as currently happens when you see the message that warns that that set of images is seen for the first time .rgs.

Posted January 23, 2015 1:06 PM
by nicro46

I refer to the previous post about ten days.
I watched anothert1,000 sets of images, with new method: maximum magnification possible
(Ctrl and +) and negative images quickly move the mouse over the marks 1 2 3 4
to speed Flicker.

Result: 2 asteroids unknown and already commented on
2 asteroids (probable) unknown seen for the first time
1 asteroid already known and already seen by others
10 asteroids known already commented for the first time
12 asteroids already known (marked with green ring) Undetected

Remarks: compared to 'use the Cycle color, this (rudimentary) system is more tiring,
longer and in most cases would give the same results. In two specific cases instead
was decisive: an asteroid along the top, with invisible Cycle, and the last
discovery yesterday, brought Talk, two asteroids already known (marked with the 'green ring)
in the same image. In this case, the set was excellent, very little background noise, the negative image clearly showed two small and weak gray dots moving on the white background. Cycle with absolutely no visible color (even knowing that there were!).
The 12 undetected asteroids were probably lost in the background noise of poor image quality. I did a lot of attention in these cases it is extremely difficult to distinguish the trace of a (weak) asteroid from the background noise if the picture is not good, in fact there may be many false signals in the same. In my opinion, a system for automated detection is not able to use these images for weak subjects.

A 'final consideration regarding the asteroids already known: so far I have found only 5 that brought Talk, were to have already been commented on Zooties, while another 50 I'm the only result to have them brought to Talk.
I can not understand this thing, it seems unlikely that anyone who finds an asteroid, also known, not the signals, as is shown in Talk of all (tens of badset today)
I do not even seem realistic that it is normal; as an average, a 1/10 ratio between the number of asteroids shared individually and those found by more Zooties.
I would love to, and I'd be grateful to read your comments and have other opinions

Posted January 30, 2015 12:44 PM
by grums

Hi nicro46. I have also been looking at better ways to analyse the image sets. In my case I have been manipulating the 4 images using Corel Paint Shop Pro. It is limited in what it can do and I can't see an easy way to manipulate the images and then get them into any software to reproduce cycling the 4 images. I can certainly improve the images to enable better detection but only by making some initial categorisation based on aspects of the initial image quality, which varies hugely (depending on the presence of bright objects, artifacts, capture faults and the degree of background noise - due to atmospheric effects and, probably, moonlight). It is very time consuming but could be automated or semi-automated with sufficient programming effort and access to the image sets. The idea was not to improve my, personally, finding more asteroids but to understand the problem of why automated systems can't do it very well. My conclusion is that with some further processing on the images, both automatic and manual detection could be improved. My opinion is also that there should be a little training for people - I suspect that at the extremes, some people skip through very quickly and only find the very bright ones and others search meticulously and have a very small hit rate in discerning actual asteroids from a random noise sequence. There would be an optimum approach that would maximise the numbers of asteroids being found. I wrote a guide on how to systematically "classify" asteroid finds in the "Objects" section but I'm the only one who uses it 😃.

I only find colour cycling useful with reasonably bright asteroids and without too many atmospheric issues. I have found just using the arrow keys Right-Right-Right --- Left-Left-Left --- Right-Right-Right ...etc. best. I agree about talking about the finds. But I know it took me quite a while to know how to work the system and find how to do things (by trial and error). I think a lot of people come on to the site but probably drift away again before they get to know about how the features work. You can see this because of the repeated questions about what are the known artifacts which will be odd to people new to looking at the image sets.

Posted January 30, 2015 2:30 PM
by nicro46

Grums Hello, and thank you for your answer. I agree with your observations. I would like to add other considerations. We can say that this work (these specific images provided from this particular source, with this type of defects, etc.) can give a certain level of results, with a little experience and a reasonable commitment from volunteers.
This involves evaluating this level. As far as I can judge, have already found and you will find a good number of new candidates for good visibility while for those really tough restrictions objective qualities are a major obstacle.
It 'obvious that you can not examine all sets with Corel Paint Shop or other systems, and in a reasonable time, but all that is necessary is to be expected from the program .In other jobs Zoo the Talk was also handled by coordinators who provided everyone, experts and newcomers, suggestions and feedback on their reports, very useful to get experience (see your same comment today on Flying Triangle).
If we were to think instead about how things should be for future work on new data, we hope to have good image quality, well aligned, purified by systematic errors, with an update of the display system (the list is desired can stretch at will ...)

Posted January 31, 2015 4:31 PM
by grums

One interesting feature is that when you expand the images using "CNTRL+" the software provides an image filter. I don't know whether this is something that The Zoo does or whether it is something in-built into the PC graphics engine. It is something like a Bilinear filter. It can make it easier to visualise (because it effectively oversamples the 256x256 pixel pictures) but it stops you looking in detail at the images at pixel level (i.e. the actual data) unless you copy paste the pics elsewhere. I'm not even sure the CNTRL+ feature is advertised; I only found it because someone on the site mentioned it.

Just on the subject of improving detection I found getting rid of the jitter between frames very helpful. Dr A. thought it was just single pixel errors but it is often much more. If you use a single small object as a guide (like a small star) you can get very good alignment. Then by subtracting one image from another (in the same set) you can remove all the fixed objects. Bright stars can leave a "noise fluctuation" near their edges but it is easily reconisable. The problem here is with the variation in image quality due, mainly, to atmospheric effects. If there is a lot of haze there is then too much resulting noise. However, in this case much improvement can be made by shaping the transfer characteristic of the luminence before the later processing. I think a set of rules could be established for shaping the transfer characteristics based on an image set "type".

There are still sets where there is sufficient "noise" of a certain type that it is not possible to use these techniques as the asteroids may be so weak that in order to detect them the method still leaves a lot of noise on the resulting images. However, it could be argued that with some of these images the discovered potential asteroids may well be just noise and if you looked hard enough you could find possible asteroids everywhere.

Automated detection would still be hard and would involve various rotation and shift transformations of the image matrices. This is not hard, just time consuming, but I don't see why an alternative approach of crowd sourcing people's compute facilities could not be adopted. At first maybe a part empirical and part computer assisted approach would work.

I may have a go at this if I get some time. I've worked in engineering (though with a physics degree) all my life and I like to try to solve problems like this. I don't mean to rattle on, but you seem the only person I have spoken with who seems interested 😃 Any suggestions appreciated!

Posted February 11, 2015 7:23 PM
by nicro46

Hi grums, I am pleased to discuss with those who share the same passion. Unfortunately I have to admit I'm not very experienced in managing digital images. I have experience of astronomical observation and photography (film) to the telescope but I practice digital photography and processing and imaging, although I have read articles about it on magazines and know a little bit of theory. I will therefore confine myself to express comments on
what is given to us to use. About your coordinate system, what do you think of a grid
lines that spread in the image, for example, ten areas vertical denominated by letters
A to L, and in ten horizontal fields named with numbers from 1 to 10. as in maps? I think it would be simple enough to say: asteroid at the center of the box B7 or in the lower left of the G9.
It could mark the edges with notches and related letters or numbers, and if it were possible to display the grid only when needed with a button would be the maximum.

Posted February 16, 2015 3:56 PM
by grums

Hi Nicro46. Yes, I agree that A to L vertically and 1 to 10 horizontally would be good. But it would need to be added to the downloaded sets at the source. It is better than my suggestions of giving percentage of width and height as x-y coordinates because it would be quicker and much easier for people to use. As such people would be much more likely to adopt it. Great idea.

Now if we could get a version of my asteroid classification system adopted too: a score based on agreed criteria, as to the "quality" of the detection (ultimately related to the likelihood of it being an asteroid rather than random noise), that would be good too.

I have been experimenting with photography tools like Paint Shop Pro. These are quite good but they don't allow the level of mathematical access to do all that is needed. I am probably going to use a free piece of software called SciLab. I would prefer MatLab but it's too expensive.

Posted February 16, 2015 8:08 PM
by nicro46

STATISTICS for those interested in the hope that they can be of some use.

Two months ago I posted here in Discussion, a first statistic after the first 10,000 frames all viewed with the system Cycle color, which can be resumed in full in previous posts, but which carry the results:

14 unknown asteroids already seen and commented on by other Zooties Talk

7 " " never seen by anyone else before

4 known " (green circle), already seen by others and commented in Talk

40 " " never seen by anyone else before

100 " " (green circle) lost, not seen

Since then I have watched other 5,000 images, but all in negative using the 'Invert option in Tools, using the Flicher "accelerated" with the mouse and after enlarging the maximum possible l' image on the screen with the Ctrl and +.
I took note of all the results, here's what I found:

29 unknown asteroids already seen by others and commented in Talk

19 " " never seen before by anyone else (including 9 evident and uncertain 7)

7 known " (green circle), already seen by others and commented in Talk

53 " " never seen by anyone else before (including 7 pairs and 1 triple)

48 " " (green circle) lost, not seen

The first consideration is that the new method I found most asteroids (known and unknown) with half the images seen, even for a greater experience, but I could
check in dozens of cases that asteroids very weak, with the Cycle color were not completely visible.
Known asteroids, reported by the green circle, that I could not see, for various reasons (small, faint, very slow, noise, etc.) Are still many, almost as much as those found and I think it's a given referable also the recognition from asteroids unknown.
Another observation concerns the relationship between the known asteroids (green circle) already seen (7)
and those that I have seen first (53) substantially equal to the first statistic, although with half images, which can be justified by the large number of existing asteroids, but which is not in line with the results of the asteroids unknown, in which case are more numerous than those seen and commented on by several people in Talk. Does anyone have an explanation?

Posted March 31, 2015 6:34 PM
by Dr.Asteroid scientist, admin

nicro46 - that is an absolutely fascinating discovery.

I can assure you that the features you're using (crtl-+) were not expected to be used. I'm extremely interested investigating further. Let me see if I can get your observations pulled out so we can take a look.

(this will take a little bit unless you give me a few of the specific observations - since I'm not part of zooniverse, I can't reference a particular observation to a particular person - the data has been anonymized.)

Cheers!

Posted April 2, 2015 3:54 PM
by nicro46

Dr.Asteroid carry with pleasure some of the latest examples of very faint asteroids (or those deemed by me) AAZ0002r3y -
AAZ0001dwu - AAZ0001qxi - AAZ00005j0 - AAZ000097n -
AAZ0001qzl. Try to observe them with both systems and let me know. truly yours

Posted April 3, 2015 12:38 PM
by B50

Hi I'm new here.
I have a little knowledge to Asteroid hunting. I had to learn here that bad Images can be right.
You have to Click to Reverse to see the Images right.
The Images has no Name to correct wrong marks after finish.
I tried to work with a HP Stream 7 under W 8.1. It is impossible to mark an Object at its correct Position.
So I can only work with a right PC.
So far
Juergen

Posted April 29, 2015 5:43 PM
by AstroTinker in response to DZM's comment.

How about a board, or at least sticky topic, on Suggested Improvements to the Asteroid Zoo? At the moment we just have 3 boards, all with what appears to be a single sub-board called The Objects. Very confusing in the threads. This could have a sub-board for improvements to Talk, and another for improvements to the viewing system. Second, FAQs needs to be a sub board of it's own, with threads on each Question. Third, we need a sub-board under the Science board called Updates from the Scientists. Responses to threads on this might cover a good chunk of the current Talk. For now, I will drop suggestions into the appropriate topics. This seemed the best place for this one.

Posted May 25, 2015 5:22 AM
by nicro46

STATISTICS for those interested in the hope that they can be of some use.

Two months ago I posted here in Discussion, a first statistic after the first 10,000 frames all viewed with the system Cycle color, which can be resumed in full in previous posts, but which carry the results:

14 unknown asteroids previously seen by others Zooties and commented in Talk

7 " " never seen by anyone else before

4 known " (green circle), already seen by others and commented in Talk

40 " " never seen by anyone else before

100 " " (green circle) lost, unseen

Since then I have watched other 5,000 images, but all in negative using the 'Invert option in Tools, using the Flicher "accelerated" with the mouse and after enlarging the maximum possible l' image on the screen with the Ctrl and +.
I have taken note of all the results, here's what I found:

29 unknown asteroids previously seen by others and commented in Talk

19 " " never seen before by anyone else (including 9 7 obvious and uncertain)

7 known " (green circle), already seen by others and commented in Talk

53 " " never seen by anyone else before (including 7 pairs and 1 triple)

48 " " (green circle) lost, unseen

The first consideration is that with the new method I find most asteroids (known and unknown) with half the images seen, even to a greater experience, but I could
check in dozens of cases that asteroids very weak, with the Cycle color were not completely visible.
Asteroids known, reported by the green circle, that I could not see, for various reasons (small, dim, very slow, noise, etc.) Are still many, almost as much as those found and think it's a given referable also the recognition from asteroids unknown.
Another observation concerns the relationship between the known asteroids (green circle) already seen (7)
and those that I have seen first (53) substantially equal to the first statistic, although with half images, which can be justified by the large number of existing asteroids, but which is not in line with the results of the asteroids unknown, in which case They are more numerous than those seen and commented on by several people in Talk. Does anyone have an explanation?

June 11 06.11.2015

Resume the previous statistics, updating the 20,000 sets viewed.

So here below the results of the last 5,000 images:

14 unknown asteroids previously seen by others and commented in Talk

14 " " never seen before by anyone else (including 9 7 obvious and uncertain)

5 known " (green circle), already seen by others and commented in Talk

29 " " never seen by anyone else before (including 7 pairs and 1 triple)

38 " " (green circle) lost, unseen

The results indicate a significant decrease in visible objects than the previous lot,
probably they are brought under consideration areas of sky on the sidelines of the 'ecliptic.
In any case, having arrived at the 20,000 sets examined starting from 'beginning of AsteroidZoo more than a year ago, I wanted to compare the significant results obtained in total:

57 unknown asteroids previously seen by others and commented in Talk

30 " " never seen by anyone else before (20 of which are obvious and uncertain 10)

with the results to date recognized by the program AsteroidZoo, ie ZERO.
I remain confident in waiting, I know that does not depend on the Team and that the MPC needs
for a long time, remain informed of this newcomers.

Posted June 11, 2015 7:33 PM
by ellisano

Hello everyone 😃

I happened to stumble upon this website by chance (someone posted a link through a newspaper article about asteroids and I am pleased I followed it.

I find it strangely soothing searching for asteroids and could do it all day! I also have a very good eye for detail which also helps I suppose 😃

Anyway, I just wanted to pop in and say hi before I go back off to hunt for some more asteroids (hopefully!)

Good luck everyone, Ian

Posted June 14, 2015 1:15 PM
by ellisano

Hello again.

Excuse me if this is the wrong place to ask or has already been mentioned but would it not be possible to keep the crosshairs you have picked over the frames when you favourite a set?

Posted June 14, 2015 4:05 PM
by nicro46 in response to nicro46's comment.

Sorry, I missed the sum !! The total number of asteroids unknown, unseen by others before, is 40 (not 30), of which 30 are evident, and 10 uncertain. Considering the 57 asteroids unknown but already seen by others, we come to a hundred asteroids of 20,000 inspected images: one for every 200 sets about

Posted June 14, 2015 7:02 PM
by bc2callhome

Will we get credit and be able to name them Many thanks Bill

Posted June 16, 2015 2:36 PM
by DZM admin

Hey Bill,

Here's the most recent update on what the science team is up to. Hope this helps!

Posted June 16, 2015 5:23 PM
by Kishu

Hi friends, greetings from India! I am pretty enthusiastic about finding asteroids!!

Posted January 6, 2016 9:45 AM
by nicro46

STATISTICS for those who are interested, in the hope that they can be of some use.

Two months ago I posted here in Discussion, a first statistic after the first 10,000 frames all viewed with the Cycle color system, which can be resumed in full in previous posts, but which carry the results:

14 previously unknown asteroids seen by others Zooties and commented in Talk

7 "" never seen by anyone else before

4 "known (green circle), already seen by others and commented in Talk

40 "" never seen by anyone else before

100 "" (green circle) lost, unseen

Since then I have watched other 5,000 images, but all in negative using the 'Invert option in Tools, using the Flicher "accelerated" with the mouse and after enlarging the maximum possible l' image on the screen with the Ctrl and + keys.
I have taken note of all the results, here's what I found:

29 previously unknown asteroids seen by others and commented in Talk

19 "" never seen by anyone else before (12 of which are obvious and uncertain 7)

7 "known (green circle), already seen by others and commented in Talk

53 "" never seen before by anyone else (including 7 couples and 1 triple)

48 "" (green circle) lost, unseen

The first consideration is that with the new method I find most asteroids (known and unknown) with half the viewed images, even for a greater experience gained, but I could
check dozens of cases very faint asteroids, with the Cycle color they were absolutely not visible.
Known asteroids, signaled by the green circle, which I could not see, for various reasons (small, faint, very slow, noise, etc.) Are still so many, almost as much as those found and I think it's a given referable also the recognition by unknown asteroids.
Another observation concerns the relationship between the known asteroids (green circle) already seen (7)
and those that I have seen first (53) substantially equal to the first statistic, although with half images, which can be justified by the large number of existing asteroids, but which is not in line with the results of the unknown asteroids, in which case They are more numerous than those seen and commented on by several people in Talk. Does anyone have an explanation?

June 11, 2015

Resume the previous chart, updating the 20,000 sets inspected.

so here are the results of the last 5,000 images:

14 previously unknown asteroids seen by others and commented in Talk

14 "" never seen by anyone else before (10 of which are obvious and uncertain 4)

5 "known (green circle), already seen by others and commented in Talk

29 "" never seen before by anyone else (including 7 couples and 1 triple)

38 "" (green circle) lost, unseen

The results indicate a significant decrease of visible objects from the previous batch,
probably they are brought into consideration areas on the sidelines of the sky 'ecliptic.
Anyway, having arrived at the 20,000 sets examined starting from 'beginning of AsteroidZoo more than a year ago, I wanted to compare the significant results achieved overall:

57 previously unknown asteroids seen by others and commented in Talk

40 "" never seen by anyone else before (30 of which are obvious and uncertain 10)

with the results known today by AsteroidZoo program, ie ZERO.
I remain in confident expectation, I know that does not depend on the team and that the MPC needs
a long time, remain informed about this new arrivals.

UPDATE
1. 1. 2016
They resume the previous chart, updating the 25,000 inspected in September.

so here are the results of the last 5,000 images:

5 previously unknown asteroids seen by others and commented on Talk (one double)

26 "" never seen by anyone else before (of which 19 are evident and uncertain 7)

6 "known (green circle), already seen by others and commented on Talk (one triple)

49 "" never seen by anyone else before (of which 3 couples and 1 triple)

14 "" (green circle) lost, unseen

Significant results achieved overall:

63 previously unknown asteroids seen by others and commented in Talk

66 "" never seen by anyone else before (of which 48 are evident and 18 uncertain)

with the results known today by AsteroidZoo program, ie ZERO.
I remain in confident expectation, I know that does not depend on the team and that the MPC needs
a long time, remain informed about this new arrivals.

It's been two years since 'beginning of this program, and I participated with enthusiasm from the first day. I preferred, I do not know why, other perhaps more compelling, with the most beautiful images
and interesting. Anyway, I'm satisfied with my result staff: I found some 130 potential new asteroids, half in sharing with other colleagues, and at least fifty as the first discoverer.
Of these, probably, I can assume that a dozen are already known asteroids and not yet included in the program database and an 'other dozen comets are too small and distant to have developed a visible tail. It would still be around thirty potential new asteroids to classify. It should begin with the MPC job. To our knowledge, to date, no results. Archived definitely hope to be able in some way to
to name at least one asteroid by the discoverer (I had suggested using the nickname), I think that the minimum recognition would be to publish a statistic with the names and the results of all those who contributed.
I do not know if all this work, like that of other Zooties, will go to waste or not.
I sincerely hope that does not happen and that in any case this experience will serve at least as a team
for the future .
I think here to close the active participation, but nevertheless constantly check the site waiting for unexpected good news.
A greeting and a wish for good things to all participants.

Posted March 28, 2016 10:52 PM
by MvGulik

Browsing topic ...

10,000 classifications! That by itself represents .64% of the total number of classifications done

Erm. Although not incorrect. The missing leading zero is making it highly susceptible to being read as 64%, instead of 0.64%.

Something else that I think is not unimportant, but seems not mentioned in this topic, is the nasty role uncertainty can play in any study. (That is ... uncertainties that are known to exist, but that are unknown in there value/range.I'm revering here to the "commented on Talk" part(s).)

All measurements are subject to uncertainty and a measurement result is complete only when it is accompanied by a statement of the associated uncertainty.

Posted March 29, 2016 10:12 AM
by nicro46

If 10,000 classifications correspond to 0.64% of the total, my 25,000 should correspond to 1,60%! The uncertainty of the calculation is due to lack of data, which are NOT provided, as well as all the statistics that we can do, by estimating these MISSING data to the best of our ability. 29.03.2016

Posted March 29, 2016 1:23 PM
by MvGulik

That 0.64% message was posted some time ago. Not only has your classification count gone up, but of course the total classification count went up too. ... A more up-to-date result is 0.971%.

This 0.971% is still higher than that previous 0.64%, Although the active azoo classification rate is probably the major factor in this.

Posted March 29, 2016 5:59 PM