The selection of images by Robert Nemiroff and Jerry Bonnell is anything but objective. Many people have noticed this and express their concerns about this privately but none have actually been bold enough to voice this publicly. I have numerous examples which show this blatant bias. If your not in the "select" group of people for the most part your images are not going to be selected for APOD regardless of merit. I've removed all of my images and have quit posting them to Asterisk because of this.
They and the anonymous moderators of this BBS make the rules and keenly enforce them. When the cards are stacked against you I see no point in playing.
It must be nice to be King!
Fred Herrmann
Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
-
ftherrmann
- Science Officer
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:56 am
Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
Last edited by owlice on Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed text violating rules
Reason: Removed text violating rules
-
geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
I'm not anonymous at all. I've used the same nickname throughout most of my years using the internet and my real name is clearly posted on my website. For what it's worth, I refused to comply with your order to remove all of your posts and delete your account because you were angry at the time and I do care about you, Fred, even though I know so little about you. I'm sorry to read that you've done it yourself. I'm not the one who gets to decide what gets to be an APOD. None of the other mods are, either. I don't think we or the editors at APOD are beyond criticism but there is a proper place and a method for doing so. Humans are incapable of perfect objectivity. However, I don't think it's quite as bad as you think it is. They take plenty of flak in private about things, I'm sure. More importantly, I think they do the best that they can do.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
-
ftherrmann
- Science Officer
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:56 am
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
Geck,
I did a quick search and I couldn't find out who you were. Your real identity isn't under your profile? Back to the subject....
We're all human and nothing decided by a human can be totally objective. However some of the more recent APOD choices are incredibly biased. If your not one of the names that shows up on the speakers list of the AIC your not considered. And if you are, your images, regardless of how bad they are, are automatically selected.
By example:
APOD Aug 30th,2013 http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130830.html
IMHO the following is a much superior image submitted on Aug 9th, 2013 of the same object/composition but was not selected for APOD: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7400/9465 ... 7e9d_c.jpg
I'm going to try to do an objective analysis of each of these images.
The APOD selection: While the background star field is very nice the main objects of the image, in particular the Lagoon and the Trifid, are totally over saturated and over exposed to the point that little, if any real detail is visible.
The second, yet unselected image, has superior detail and a good color balance of all objects including the rich star field background. It's not hideously oversaturated to the point of being vulgar.
I've posted probably close to 300 images to this website and have submitted via email images to both Robert Nemiroff and Jerry Bonnell yet have never had ONE of my images selected for APOD. At the same time many of these very same images were selected by National Geographic, Space.com as best images of the week. Many of these images have also been printed in Sky and Telescope and Astronomy magazines.
It get's to the point where you've got to ask yourself why? Maybe I've said something that upset the selectors? If so I'd like to think that as professional scientists they would be able to overcome their feelings and offer as best an objective selection as humanly possible. My income at the end of the month is the same, regardless if one of my images is selected or not. It's just the principle of the whole selection process.
It get's to a point where the credibility of the selections comes under serious question.
Fred Herrmann
I did a quick search and I couldn't find out who you were. Your real identity isn't under your profile? Back to the subject....
We're all human and nothing decided by a human can be totally objective. However some of the more recent APOD choices are incredibly biased. If your not one of the names that shows up on the speakers list of the AIC your not considered. And if you are, your images, regardless of how bad they are, are automatically selected.
By example:
APOD Aug 30th,2013 http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130830.html
IMHO the following is a much superior image submitted on Aug 9th, 2013 of the same object/composition but was not selected for APOD: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7400/9465 ... 7e9d_c.jpg
I'm going to try to do an objective analysis of each of these images.
The APOD selection: While the background star field is very nice the main objects of the image, in particular the Lagoon and the Trifid, are totally over saturated and over exposed to the point that little, if any real detail is visible.
The second, yet unselected image, has superior detail and a good color balance of all objects including the rich star field background. It's not hideously oversaturated to the point of being vulgar.
I've posted probably close to 300 images to this website and have submitted via email images to both Robert Nemiroff and Jerry Bonnell yet have never had ONE of my images selected for APOD. At the same time many of these very same images were selected by National Geographic, Space.com as best images of the week. Many of these images have also been printed in Sky and Telescope and Astronomy magazines.
It get's to the point where you've got to ask yourself why? Maybe I've said something that upset the selectors? If so I'd like to think that as professional scientists they would be able to overcome their feelings and offer as best an objective selection as humanly possible. My income at the end of the month is the same, regardless if one of my images is selected or not. It's just the principle of the whole selection process.
It get's to a point where the credibility of the selections comes under serious question.
Fred Herrmann
-
geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
Using Google or probably just about any search engine, typing in "geckzilla" should bring you to geckzila.com, which is me. You can also click the website link in my profile to get there. There's not a whole lot of other geckzillas out there. Just a few pet geckos, I think.
As for the two images I see the merits of both images and I have a background in art and design and have done a fair amount of image processing myself. I think the real question is if you can get over your own feelings.
As for the two images I see the merits of both images and I have a background in art and design and have done a fair amount of image processing myself. I think the real question is if you can get over your own feelings.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
-
ftherrmann
- Science Officer
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:56 am
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
Judy,
Getting over "my feelings" isn't really the subject of the discussion. As long as I continue to see this incredibly biased selection process I'm simply going to sit out. Can't you simply make a decision and decide which of these images you prefer rather than the PC answer you gave? I already pointed out what I perceived as the "one" merit of the APOD selection. And I've obviously made a choice as to which was the better image.
Instead of blaming the short comings of the APOD selections on "my feelings" why don't you address the issue?
Fred
PS: Geckzilla.com... A nice website!
Getting over "my feelings" isn't really the subject of the discussion. As long as I continue to see this incredibly biased selection process I'm simply going to sit out. Can't you simply make a decision and decide which of these images you prefer rather than the PC answer you gave? I already pointed out what I perceived as the "one" merit of the APOD selection. And I've obviously made a choice as to which was the better image.
Instead of blaming the short comings of the APOD selections on "my feelings" why don't you address the issue?
Fred
PS: Geckzilla.com... A nice website!
-
geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
Personally, if it were me, I probably would have toned down the saturation a bit, so I agree with you about that. But Tony's is still a wonderful composition and I actually like the dust details and the colors revealed in the stars better than yours. Does yours have more details in the core of the Lagoon? Sure. But that's not the only thing to take into consideration. The overall balance of objects within the selected APOD plainly better. Yours cuts off the red nebula at the bottom while Tony's leaves a comfortable margin around it.
And yes, I do still think your feelings are overcoming you. You feel very strongly against Tony's and you feel very strongly for your own image. An objective critic is able to say something about each without belittling anyone.
I have no way of addressing any perceived bias or what may be more specifically called nepotism. I have no answers for why your images are never selected. They may find it easier to come back to the same people repeatedly or they may simply not like your work. As you can see, there's nothing I can say that isn't pure speculation.
And yes, I do still think your feelings are overcoming you. You feel very strongly against Tony's and you feel very strongly for your own image. An objective critic is able to say something about each without belittling anyone.
I have no way of addressing any perceived bias or what may be more specifically called nepotism. I have no answers for why your images are never selected. They may find it easier to come back to the same people repeatedly or they may simply not like your work. As you can see, there's nothing I can say that isn't pure speculation.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
Geckzilla, bystander, and I are hardly anonymous! If you haven't figured out our real names by now, you haven't tried very hard or just haven't been paying attention. And why it would matter for administering the board what our real names are anyway, I just don't know.
I have emailed -- from my personal home email account under my real name -- imagers whose images I've posted on the board. I've sent THOUSANDS of emails to submitters. So no, I'm not anonymous. If you have ever submitted images to APOD and had them appear on Asterisk as a submission posted by me, then you, too, have gotten email from me.
I think Jerry and Robert do an amazing job of selecting APODs (and only they select images; I have been very upfront when corresponding with imagers about this -- I have no input into what gets selected). They are not all from "one small pool." The fact is there are tens of thousands of images that are available to them every single day. They can't look at all tens of thousands of them every day, and they don't always look at all the same images -- in fact, they often don't. Some images are sent to one editor, some to the other editor, some they both get. One may look in some places for images, one in other places. They don't choose the images together; they each select the images for the APODs they write. They choose images they think are suitable for this kind of outreach. (This is an outreach activity, to engage and inform the public.) What you think is a "better" image might be prettier (to you), but that doesn't necessarily make it the better image for APOD's use.
And often, as soon as an image is posted of a particular object, they get a bunch more, some of which might be better, but they don't post any of them right after getting them because they've just posted that object. RJN talked about this in his Reddit Ask a... session (which I'm sure Google would find for you if you want to read it).
The nice thing about Asterisk is that it provides a way for people to see some of the stunning images that APOD can't run because it can run only one per day. That's one of the reasons we post submissions here -- so people can see these fabulous images!
I have emailed -- from my personal home email account under my real name -- imagers whose images I've posted on the board. I've sent THOUSANDS of emails to submitters. So no, I'm not anonymous. If you have ever submitted images to APOD and had them appear on Asterisk as a submission posted by me, then you, too, have gotten email from me.
I think Jerry and Robert do an amazing job of selecting APODs (and only they select images; I have been very upfront when corresponding with imagers about this -- I have no input into what gets selected). They are not all from "one small pool." The fact is there are tens of thousands of images that are available to them every single day. They can't look at all tens of thousands of them every day, and they don't always look at all the same images -- in fact, they often don't. Some images are sent to one editor, some to the other editor, some they both get. One may look in some places for images, one in other places. They don't choose the images together; they each select the images for the APODs they write. They choose images they think are suitable for this kind of outreach. (This is an outreach activity, to engage and inform the public.) What you think is a "better" image might be prettier (to you), but that doesn't necessarily make it the better image for APOD's use.
And often, as soon as an image is posted of a particular object, they get a bunch more, some of which might be better, but they don't post any of them right after getting them because they've just posted that object. RJN talked about this in his Reddit Ask a... session (which I'm sure Google would find for you if you want to read it).
The nice thing about Asterisk is that it provides a way for people to see some of the stunning images that APOD can't run because it can run only one per day. That's one of the reasons we post submissions here -- so people can see these fabulous images!
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
-
ftherrmann
- Science Officer
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:56 am
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
Geck,
Correction to your reply.. The second, "superior" image is NOT my image. I'm not belittling anyone by stating that Tony's is grossly over saturated and lacks detail. It's my opinion and doesn't say anything about Tony or him personally. Just the image. Just the "perceived" facts through my eyeballs. Unless Tony and the "usual suspects" are related I don't think the word "nepotism" is correct. In summary I think we need to agree to disagree about Tony's Lagoon image and what I and others perceive to be bias on the part of the APOD selectors.
Owlice,
Your right. I haven't spent any time trying to find out who you are. I don't really care. I'm just not a fan of anonymous posts/censorship.
In the particular example I made the image which I perceive as being superior was posted before Tony's. Not after. The perception by a lot of people, including myself, is that if your not one of about 12 people who regularly find their image selected as an APOD your chances of being selected are slim. The APOD selection bias has gotten to the point where people have started APOD knock-off sites "for the rest of us!".
To continue this conversation is a bit pointless since your not going to admit any form of bias, no matter how obvious.
Fred
Correction to your reply.. The second, "superior" image is NOT my image. I'm not belittling anyone by stating that Tony's is grossly over saturated and lacks detail. It's my opinion and doesn't say anything about Tony or him personally. Just the image. Just the "perceived" facts through my eyeballs. Unless Tony and the "usual suspects" are related I don't think the word "nepotism" is correct. In summary I think we need to agree to disagree about Tony's Lagoon image and what I and others perceive to be bias on the part of the APOD selectors.
Owlice,
Your right. I haven't spent any time trying to find out who you are. I don't really care. I'm just not a fan of anonymous posts/censorship.
In the particular example I made the image which I perceive as being superior was posted before Tony's. Not after. The perception by a lot of people, including myself, is that if your not one of about 12 people who regularly find their image selected as an APOD your chances of being selected are slim. The APOD selection bias has gotten to the point where people have started APOD knock-off sites "for the rest of us!".
To continue this conversation is a bit pointless since your not going to admit any form of bias, no matter how obvious.
Fred
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
I think the APOD editors are biased towards images which they think best suit the purposes of APOD. APOD is not a contest; I think it unfortunate some think so. The image you find superior was better for APOD at the time it was posted. Another image came along at a good time for that image. Surely you don't want APOD to show only one image of these nebulae from here on out; you'd certainly complain about that! Again, there are tens of thousands of images available. You cannot expect the editors to look at all of these images every day and compare them. (You do know they have full-time jobs, yes?)
I'm not surprised at all there are other sites on which imagers post their images. APOD can show only one per day, and as it's an educational site for public outreach, the images chosen are going to reflect that.
Recently, an imager commented to me that he realized Asterisk is not an image board; that it isn't apparently hadn't occurred to him before.
Any "censorship" that happens here is enforcement of the rules that everyone agrees to when they post here. If people violate the rules, the admins intervene, sometimes by sequestering posts. This shouldn't surprise anyone -- it's stated outright in the rules that this can happen when people violate the rules.
I'm not surprised at all there are other sites on which imagers post their images. APOD can show only one per day, and as it's an educational site for public outreach, the images chosen are going to reflect that.
Recently, an imager commented to me that he realized Asterisk is not an image board; that it isn't apparently hadn't occurred to him before.
Any "censorship" that happens here is enforcement of the rules that everyone agrees to when they post here. If people violate the rules, the admins intervene, sometimes by sequestering posts. This shouldn't surprise anyone -- it's stated outright in the rules that this can happen when people violate the rules.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
-
geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
My bad, I figured it was the same image you posted before, which, if I remember correctly, was yours. You didn't do a good job indicating whose image it was.
Yeah, nepotism was the wrong word. I didn't remember that it specifically applied to relatives. Anyway, it's not our bias to admit. I'm not going to repeat it again. We do not choose APODs. I also do not seek to have any of my images featured so passionately. I have never bothered to study exactly who gets how many APODs. I have noticed a few names do appear more frequently. Is that what you want? There's still absolutely nothing I can do about that.
Yeah, nepotism was the wrong word. I didn't remember that it specifically applied to relatives. Anyway, it's not our bias to admit. I'm not going to repeat it again. We do not choose APODs. I also do not seek to have any of my images featured so passionately. I have never bothered to study exactly who gets how many APODs. I have noticed a few names do appear more frequently. Is that what you want? There's still absolutely nothing I can do about that.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
Here are the most recent 100 APOD credits:
- X-ray - NASA / CXC / Q. Daniel Wang (UMASS) et al., IR - NASA/STScI
Adam Block, Mt. Lemmon SkyCenter, U. Arizona
NASA, ESA, Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA), and IPHAS
Scott Rosen
Maria Rosa Vila
AFS, BLM
Hubble Legacy Archive, NASA, ESA - Processing: José Jiménez Priego
Tony Hallas
Laurie Hatch
Alan Dyer (The Amazing Sky)
NASA, ESA, F. Summers, Z. Levay, L. Frattare, B. Mobasher, A. Koekemoer and the HUDF Team (STScI)
Hubble Legacy Archive, ESA, NASA; Processing: Delio Tolivia Cadrecha
Gemini Observatory, GMOS-South, NSF
NASA, JPL-Caltech, Cassini Project, Denizens of Earth
Jürg Alean
César Blanco González
Xiang Zhan (Beijing Planetarium)
NASA/SDO & the AIA, EVE, and HMI teams; Digital Composition: Peter L. Dove
Maciej Winiarczyk; Music: Jolanta Galka-Kurkowska
Skylab, NASA
Ignacio Diaz Bobillo
Jimmy Westlake (Colorado Mountain College)
D. Nidever et al., NRAO/AUI/NSF, A. Mellinger, LAB Survey, Parkes, Westerbork, and Arecibo Obs.
Hung-Hsuan Yen
Darryl Van Gaal; Annotation: Judy Schmidt
NASA, JPL-Caltech
NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage (STScI / AURA)- ESA / Hubble Collaboration Acknowledgment: R. Chandar (Univ. Toledo) and J. Miller (Univ. Michigan)
Babak Tafreshi (TWAN)
Sebastian Voltmer
NASA, ESA, Hubble Heritage (STScI/AURA); Acknowledgement: A. Reiss et al. (JHU)
James Boardman-Woodend (Images ~ Inspired by Nature); Annotation: Judy Schmidt
Subaru Telescope (NAOJ) & DSS; Assembly and Processing: Robert Gendler
NASA/JHU Applied Physics Lab/Carnegie Inst. Washington
Galileo Project, JPL, NASA
Martin Pugh (Heaven's Mirror Observatory)
Rogelio Bernal Andreo (Deep Sky Colors)
Adam Block and Tim Puckett
GISS, NASA
X-ray: NASA/CXC/IAA-CSIC/N. Ruiz et al.; Optical: NASA/STScI
Cassini Imaging Team, SSI, JPL, ESA, NASA
R. Lucas (STScI/AURA), Hubble Heritage Team, NASA
Yuri Beletsky (Las Campanas Observatory, Carnegie Institution)
Juan Lozano de Haro
Máximo Ruiz
Ken Murphy (MurphLab); Music Ariel (Moby)
Cassini Imaging Team, SSI, JPL, ESA, NASA & NASA/JHU Applied Physics Lab/Carnegie Inst. Washington
Cassini Imaging Team, SSI, JPL, ESA, NASA
R. G. French (Wellesley College) et al., NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)
Nick Martin
Tunç Tezel (TWAN)
Stephen Leshin
Joey Mole
Galspace
Caltech/Palomar Observatory/Paul Gardner, Salvatore Grasso, and Ryan Hannahoe
Emanuele Colognato & Jim Wood
Jo Hunter
Fernando Cabrerizo
Bob Franke
Damian Peach
Jose Francisco Hernandez (Altamira Observatory)
NASA, ESA, Mark Showalter (SETI Institute)
Adam Block, Mt. Lemmon SkyCenter, U. Arizona
ESA, Hubble, NASA
Damian Peach
Ken Crawford (Rancho Del Sol Obs.)
Bill Metallinos
Robert Nemiroff (MTU)
Robert Nemiroff (MTU)
Cassini Imaging Team, SSI, JPL, ESA, NASA
Pete Lawrence (Digital-Astronomy)
Luis Argerich
Sergey Lisakov
Lorenzo Comolli
NASA, JPL-Caltech, MSSS, Mastcam
NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STSci/AURA)
E. De Jong et al. (JPL), MIPL, Magellan Team, NASA
Anthony Ayiomamitis (TWAN)
Danilo Pivato
Alessandro Falesiedi
John H. Moore; Annotation: Judy Schmidt
Mike Olbinski; Music: Impact Lento (Kevin MacLeod, Incompetech)
HiRISE, MRO, LPL (U. Arizona), NASA
Wang Letian
Yuri Beletsky (Las Campanas Observatory, Carnegie Institution)
Bill Snyder (at Sierra Remote Observatories)
Chris Kotsiopoulos (GreekSky)
NASA/JHU Applied Physics Lab/Carnegie Inst. Washington
Desert Hollow Observatory
UV: NASA, Swift, S. Immler (Goddard) & M. Siegel (Penn State); Optical: Axel Mellinger (CMU)
Tor Even Mathisen; Music: Per Wollen; Vocals: Silje Beate Nilssen
Apollo 11, NASA; Stereo Image by Patrick Vantuyne
NASA, ESA, and the Hubble SM4 ERO Team
morn1415 (YouTube)
NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage (STScI / AURA)- ESA / Hubble Collaboration
César Blanco González
NASA, JPL-Caltech, MSSS, MAHLI
Daniela Mirner Eberl
Wally Pacholka (AstroPics.com, TWAN)
Dieter Willasch (Astro-Cabinet)
Subaru Telescope (NAOJ), Hubble Space Telescope, Additional Color data: Adam Block, Bob Franke, Maurice Toet - Assembly and Processing: Robert Gendler
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
-
ftherrmann
- Science Officer
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:56 am
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
Geck and Owl,
Here's a search I just did:
Block: Found 135 items.
Gendler: Found 93 items.
Hallas: Found 22 items.
Crawford: Found 22 items.
These guys produce great images! No doubt about it. However there are other "amateurs" (the word amateur probably doesn't apply to Block) which produce just as good an image as these folks and never get recognized. Speaking of competition... No amateur can ever compete with a Hubble 100" space telescope, with the exception of wide field images which the Hubble can't do. A modest $30K backyard observatory will never be able to compete, in terms of resolution, with a $5 billion+ tax dollar professional telescope staffed by an army of engineers/scientists.
Competition continued: Yes there is competition. Especially among the amateur imagers. For that matter pro's also. It's always been "publish or perish" among the science community. And by that I'm not solely referring to "pretty pictures".
You'll either see my point or not. My guess is you'll never admit it even if you did.
Fred
PS: I never said Asterisk was responsible for APOD selection. I'm complaining about the bias in the selections made by Robert Nemiroff and Jerry Bonnell. Asterisks is simply a discussion forum.
Here's a search I just did:
Block: Found 135 items.
Gendler: Found 93 items.
Hallas: Found 22 items.
Crawford: Found 22 items.
These guys produce great images! No doubt about it. However there are other "amateurs" (the word amateur probably doesn't apply to Block) which produce just as good an image as these folks and never get recognized. Speaking of competition... No amateur can ever compete with a Hubble 100" space telescope, with the exception of wide field images which the Hubble can't do. A modest $30K backyard observatory will never be able to compete, in terms of resolution, with a $5 billion+ tax dollar professional telescope staffed by an army of engineers/scientists.
Competition continued: Yes there is competition. Especially among the amateur imagers. For that matter pro's also. It's always been "publish or perish" among the science community. And by that I'm not solely referring to "pretty pictures".
You'll either see my point or not. My guess is you'll never admit it even if you did.
Fred
PS: I never said Asterisk was responsible for APOD selection. I'm complaining about the bias in the selections made by Robert Nemiroff and Jerry Bonnell. Asterisks is simply a discussion forum.
-
geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
You want us to admit to what? You want us to agree with you. The choosing of APODs isn't my business. They could post sequential stills of the entire Apollo mission videos for all I care and it's still not my business. I'd probably stop looking at APOD at that point but hey, it's not my baby.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
Fred,
It's not APOD's raison d'etre to be a competition, nor an astrophotography "recognition" site; that is something that you have laid on it. It's not a contest for imagers; it has another purpose entirely, and it is unfair of you to blame APOD for not being something it isn't designed to be.
It's an educational outreach site. And the editors have to select images they think are best for that outreach education, images they want to explain to people, to use to illustrate something, or that have something they want to show to their audience.
And yes, some imagers have more than one image among the thousands of images that APOD has shown. I wouldn't expect otherwise. APOD is not a "one amateur astrophotographer's image a day" site. There is, or used to be, such a site: AAPOD.
To my knowledge, the editors don't distinguish between "amateur" and "professional," and I think the images shown on APOD demonstrate that. If someone with an iPhone takes a really cool image that shows something they think would be of interest to their audience, they may very well select that image as an APOD.
In February, APOD featured this half-tone image of a painting by Gustav Hahn. This is not the best image available, but this is the one APOD could get permission to show, so did, because it has excellent timely educational value. I suspect now that you were probably ticked off this image was shown; you probably would have preferred to have an amateur astrophotographer's image appear instead, but that's not the reason APOD exists.
It's not APOD's raison d'etre to be a competition, nor an astrophotography "recognition" site; that is something that you have laid on it. It's not a contest for imagers; it has another purpose entirely, and it is unfair of you to blame APOD for not being something it isn't designed to be.
It's an educational outreach site. And the editors have to select images they think are best for that outreach education, images they want to explain to people, to use to illustrate something, or that have something they want to show to their audience.
And yes, some imagers have more than one image among the thousands of images that APOD has shown. I wouldn't expect otherwise. APOD is not a "one amateur astrophotographer's image a day" site. There is, or used to be, such a site: AAPOD.
To my knowledge, the editors don't distinguish between "amateur" and "professional," and I think the images shown on APOD demonstrate that. If someone with an iPhone takes a really cool image that shows something they think would be of interest to their audience, they may very well select that image as an APOD.
In February, APOD featured this half-tone image of a painting by Gustav Hahn. This is not the best image available, but this is the one APOD could get permission to show, so did, because it has excellent timely educational value. I suspect now that you were probably ticked off this image was shown; you probably would have preferred to have an amateur astrophotographer's image appear instead, but that's not the reason APOD exists.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
Obviously, since you don't agree with F T Herrmann, you are all biased and unobjective.
Know the quiet place within your heart and touch the rainbow of possibility; be
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk. — Garrison Keillor
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk. — Garrison Keillor
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
Indeed.bystander wrote:Obviously, since you don't agree with F T Herrmann, you are all biased and unobjective.
Who said APOD had to be objective?
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
-
geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
I actually do partially agree and also admitted in an earlier post that some names appear fairly often. But I don't agree at all with his sentiment about anyone outside of a certain circle having no chance. And, as someone who's submitted a few images of my own, I have absolutely no expectation of ever getting selected and I don't feel slighted for it, either. I do it because I enjoy it, it's fun and I learn a lot at the same time. I definitely do not understand the competitive feelings many of the photographers have. It seems very arrogant to me to first assume that any image is just so great they couldn't possibly deny featuring it and second to be upset at having someone else's chosen over yours is simple jealousy and shows a lack of sportsmanship. I would dare to say that such unsportsmanlike behavior might very well introduce some bias against choosing one's photos.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
-
ftherrmann
- Science Officer
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:56 am
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
I simply made as best an objective comparison of two images of the same object as just "one" example of the obvious bias in regards to the selection of APODs. Now I'm being called jealous, unsportsmanlike and generally ill behaved. I thought getting overly personal and uncivilized was against the rules of this forum?
I actually love the comet half-tone image of a painting by Gustav Hahn (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130209.html) . I think its very relevant to the history of astronomy and very educational. Key words here are "relevant to astronomy"! APOD (Astronomy Picture of the Day). Notice the key word "Astronomy"? While the many image links that Ann posted are all very nice they don't necessarily relate to "Astronomy" in the generally perceived sense of the word. If Nemiroff and Bonnell want to select a picture of Bambi getting roasted in the forest and call it an "Astronomy" image who am I to argue? After all it is a picture of the Earth! However if I want to see pictures of Bambi I think I'll tune in to Disney.
Fred
I actually love the comet half-tone image of a painting by Gustav Hahn (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130209.html) . I think its very relevant to the history of astronomy and very educational. Key words here are "relevant to astronomy"! APOD (Astronomy Picture of the Day). Notice the key word "Astronomy"? While the many image links that Ann posted are all very nice they don't necessarily relate to "Astronomy" in the generally perceived sense of the word. If Nemiroff and Bonnell want to select a picture of Bambi getting roasted in the forest and call it an "Astronomy" image who am I to argue? After all it is a picture of the Earth! However if I want to see pictures of Bambi I think I'll tune in to Disney.
Fred
Last edited by owlice on Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed text violating rules
Reason: Removed text violating rules
-
geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
Fred, you need to check yourself. I mean that sincerely. You're the one who removed all of your submissions from the forum, which to me is a form of self-harm intended to draw attention to yourself. I definitely don't want you to give up on getting an APOD but there's no way I can change your attitude. You have to do it yourself.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
Re: Blatant Bias in the Selection of APODs
I have edited a few posts to delete text which was in violation of the rules, and deleted a number of posts that couldn't be salvaged. We'll give this another go.
I went through the most recent 100 APODs; 32 of them fall into the one of the following categories:
- first image on APOD for the submitter
- first image on APOD occurred this year; additional image(s) appeared later in the year
- first and only image on APOD appeared before this year and was repeated this year
- for one of the images, first APOD for a member of a collaboration; other members of the collaboration had images appear on APOD previously as part of a different collaboration. Even if one wants to discount this one, that's still 31% of the images coming from new imagers.
- Scott Rosen -- first APOD 4/2/2013; second APOD 09/03/2013
Maria Rosa Vila -- first APOD 09/02/2013
Hubble Legacy Archive, NASA, ESA - Processing: José Jiménez Priego -- first APOD 08/31/2013
Laurie Hatch -- first APOD 08/29/2013
Alan Dyer (The Amazing Sky) -- first APOD 08/28/2013
Hubble Legacy Archive, ESA, NASA; Processing: Delio Tolivia Cadrecha -- first APOD 08/26/2013
Jürg Alean -- first APOD 08/23/2013
Xiang Zhan (Beijing Planetarium) -- first APOD 08/21/2013
NASA/SDO & the AIA, EVE, and HMI teams; Digital Composition: Peter L. Dove -- first APOD 08/20/2013
Maciej Winiarczyk; Music: Jolanta Galka-Kurkowska -- first APOD 08/19/2013
Ignacio Diaz Bobillo -- first APOD 01/14/2013; second APOD 08/17/2013
Hung-Hsuan Yen -- first APOD 08/14/2013
Darryl Van Gaal; Annotation: Judy Schmidt -- first APOD 08/13/2013
James Boardman-Woodend (Images ~ Inspired by Nature); Annotation: Judy Schmidt -- first APOD 08/07/2013
X-ray: NASA/CXC/IAA-CSIC/N. Ruiz et al.; Optical: NASA/STScI -- first APOD 07/30/2013
Juan Lozano de Haro -- first APOD 07/26/2013
Ken Murphy (MurphLab); Music Ariel (Moby) -- first APOD 07/24/2013
Joey Mole -- first APOD 07/17/2013
Caltech/Palomar Observatory/Paul Gardner, Salvatore Grasso, and Ryan Hannahoe -- first APOD (Gardner) 07/13/2013
Emanuele Colognato & Jim Wood -- one APOD on 07/10/2009, repeated 07/14/2013
Jo Hunter -- first APOD 07/13/2013
Fernando Cabrerizo -- first APOD 07/12/2013
Damian Peach -- first APOD 02/15/2013; second APOD 07/05/2013; third APOD 07/10/2013 (2 likely chosen by one editor, one chosen by the other)
Bill Metallinos -- first APOD 07/03/2013
Sergey Lisakov -- first APOD 06/27/2013
Lorenzo Comolli -- first APOD 03/30/2013; second APOD 05/28/2013; third APOD 06/26/2013 (did not check which editor picked which)
John H. Moore; Annotation: Judy Schmidt -- first APOD 06/19/2013
Mike Olbinski; Music: Impact Lento (Kevin MacLeod, Incompetech) -- first APOD 06/18/2013
Tor Even Mathisen; Music: Per Wollen; Vocals: Silje Beate Nilssen -- first APOD 11/24/2010, repeated 06/09/2013
morn1415 (YouTube) -- first APOD 02/22/2011, repeated 06/06/2013
César Blanco González -- first APOD 06/04/2013; second APOD 08/22/2013
Daniela Mirner Eberl -- first APOD 01/05/2010, repeated 06/02/2013
ETA: Since Fred requested that his account be deleted (again), I deactivated it and let him know by email that he can have it reinstated if he'd like.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.