Asteroid Zoo Talk

not marked #badset

  • hightower73 by hightower73

    i am getting fed up with marking #badset on sets that have been seen by others and not marked as such!

    stop being so bloody lazy and do the job properly! if you cant be botherd to mark the bad sets and faults and do a half a$$ed job, why are you here??????

    its really getting to me that i spend half of the time marking these and its clear they have been seen before and people cant be bothered to mark them, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

    rant over!

    Posted

  • nicro46 by nicro46

    Excuse me, but why do you feel compelled to report "all" badset? Work is already quite long and boring ...

    Posted

  • hightower73 by hightower73

    the reason i feel compelled to report all the bad sets is because the more people report them, the more scientists are likely to replace and mend them with new images, that means we get to maybe see new asteroids.

    and i find it boring keep putting #badset when people dont do it.

    and i belive if the job is worth doing.....its worth doing it correctly!!!!

    Posted

  • nicro46 by nicro46

    I resume a discussion already made several months fa.questo project is based on 'examine images that are on average very poor quality, with disorders of various kinds that are repeated continuously we have three options: asteroid, artifact or anything.
    the "bad set" SHOULD NOT be published on who manages the program, it comes to operating a selection not think it's impossible, and there are at least 20%
    until now I would have to bring in talks over 1000 bad set, to what end? I would spend my time better

    Posted

  • Dr.Asteroid by Dr.Asteroid scientist, admin

    Elimination of the #badset is important. Thank you.

    Posted

  • DZM by DZM admin

    We're working on getting the #badset images axed!

    Posted

  • grums by grums

    Oh dear, I am one who has not marked many "badsets" because I don't know how to do it. I imagine I am not the only one. How do you leave a comment such as this? I just see a way to mark artifacts and/or asteroids and/or nothing then "finish". When I have tried to save an image or do anything out of the ordinary, it has thrown away the data and moved on to another set. It does seem a learn by trial and error system.

    Posted

  • hightower73 by hightower73

    when you get a bad set, press talk about it, under the set is a blue box, type #badset and then the white ok box, then up top right, press return to classifying.

    Posted

  • grums by grums

    OK, this is after you finish the set isn't it? I don't get the impression that anyone looks at this to remove these badsets from getting passed on to others for examination. It needs an automated system to detect and remove such items, which would not be hard, but I think the group involved are short of effort. I see there is a recent response that something will be done, however.
    There are lots of things that could be done to improve the images on the sets that are also not difficult from an image processing perspective but I understand that there is a natural reluctance to meddle with the software and (again) a shortage of effort. Putting some of the image processing features in the hands of "the crowd" via a limited set of instructions could enable people to find ways to improve their detection rates of good candidates. e.g. simply getting rid of systematic positional jitter between each frame or altering the average brightness (per frame).

    There are a lot more sophisticated things that could be done that are features accessible to Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro such as mathematical AND/OR/XOR of pixels frame to frame (plus threshold settings). These are time consuming, but sometimes they would be better than spending 30 minutes on a set trying to pick out a set of moving blobs (equally spaced and in a straight line) from a sea of scintillating porridge.

    Posted

  • hightower73 by hightower73

    i agree with you about the effort, some of us just like to complain lol

    and yes its after you press finish.

    Posted

  • nicro46 by nicro46

    I beg your pardon, I go back for the last time on 'argument. When I started this job, I have not found anywhere that "I had to" mark the badset fact is not expected from the options of choice. Given the very high number (more than 20%) to now I at least 1500 cases reported, how long would it take?. You are sure that everyone would be eliminated?
    I do not want to argue, but I get very angry that you think that this means not doing a good job; I repeat the badset should be eliminated at the origin, at least most, as absolutely useless with a first selection that should not be too difficult technically.
    However, I continue to look for asteroids on set of poor quality or incomplete, and mark as required artifacts.

    Posted

  • peterbees by peterbees

    Well, personally I don't mark 'bad sets'. It was really never stated as an aim of the project, and I treat the 20% or so sets which are difficult or impossible to assess as noise in the system.

    More importantly, these sets would be incredibly easy to identify (and discard) by some kind of machine screening. One can only assume that the researchers want to keep them as part of the database, and that the hugely time-consuming and frustrating inclusion of bad sets is somehow useful. More training for the asteroid picking algorithms?

    On the other hand I see that Dr.Asteroid is saying that the elimination of bad sets is important. If so, then this should be stated as a project goal up front - and an easy option in the primary selection list alongside 'Artifact' and 'Asteroid'. In the meantime I will continue to behave as an unruly and possibly defiant member of the Zoo community.

    Posted

  • nicro46 by nicro46

    Perfectly okay Peterbees.Il point it would mark "even" the badset, if this was foreseen in databese (why not update it, then, by adding a fourth box to click?), What I think is unreasonable is to bring the badset into the Talk page. In other programs GalaxyZoo we report those who consider achievements or special situations, so that moderators can give their opinion, confirming the possible discovery or correcting the hypothesis, and sometimes you are asked not to bring unnecessary images, out of the context, so as not to waste time to those who must examine. In our case, however no one intervenes to comment when reporting a possible new asteroid, then I assume that a badset is not considered at all.
    Honestly one has the impression that you made a set of old data quality medium / low, and they have tried to obtain the data by means of volunteers, since the same would not have been sufficiently manageable by computers

    Posted