What about a possible ergonomy amelioration ?
Long time ago I (and a lot of other people) complaint about the poor ergonomy of the analyse screen. Marking artefacts is painfull (I resign to do it for long time !) some functions need amelioration like cycling, inversion, results visualisations.... many suggestions had been collected, some indication of ameliorations had been emitted (see the FAQ) and now.... Nothing at all.... Is it a lack of interest (or of mean) for the users ?
I agree with dudrea (I think). I have given up marking "artifacts" unless they are unusual or interesting as I can't see what use knowledge of these would be other than giving statistical weight on what needs to be improved regarding the imaging systems. It would be good to have some feedback to know whether this approach is acceptable, but I would tend to ignore the following artifacts:
- Whole frame capture failures
- Vertical lines that are "column failures" due to soft errors in the detector array
- A regular repeating 4 point pattern (like an inverted crucifix) going left, right, top, bottom in sequence. Can be either a bright dot or a dark (roughly circular) mote covering many hundreds of pixels. I don't uderstand why the pattern occurs but I would postulate that the problem is occurring on the same region on the detector array but that each optical image is moved to use a different region on the array for each frame (to average gain errors from each pixel?? and/or to correct electronically for the earth rotation rather than tracking the telescope?? though the pattern would make no sense in this case).
Detector arrays will be affected by cosmic ray impacts, locally radio-active sources and by random thermal, flicker and shot noise.