Author Topic: Why we need you NOW  (Read 25326 times)

zookeeperChris

  • Admin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 723
    • View Profile
Why we need you NOW
« on: November 28, 2007, 05:12:55 pm »
Finally - after a remarkably large effort from the computer-literate members of the team - the main part of our bias testing data has now been added to the data base. If you go and classify galaxies now, you'll notice some odd things happening. This is the last major obstacle between us and the publication of the first science results, so an extra effort from you all would be much appreciated. Even if you're already sick of galaxies (surely not), just classifying, 5, or 50 or 500 extra images would be an enormous help.

Chris

EricFDiaz

  • Guest
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2007, 05:23:27 pm »
No problem, Chris. ;)

scaryitalian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 575
  • ... all your letters in the sand ...
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2007, 05:37:20 pm »
Galaxy Ref: 588295842860499141 - dwarf in black-and-white!    ;D




Galaxy Ref: 588295841247592461 - elliptical in black-and-white!    ;D




Galaxy Ref: 588010360687886355 - ACW spiral in black-and-white!    ;D




Galaxy Ref: 587739827134529837 - and an odd oddball (thought sat track, but looks more like internal reflection)


next, mergers and this post will be done...
« Last Edit: November 28, 2007, 06:27:50 pm by scaryitalian »
... all the places I have been remind me there is none
to match the cool green rolling hills of Earth ...

--> Tim Staffell, "Earth" (Smile) <--


Alice

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 31782
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2007, 05:42:28 pm »
WOW!!!  :o :o :o

And you won't let me have the security of my nice green grid!  >:(

That'll keep me nice and distracted for a bit.

jlowe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1517
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2007, 06:04:58 pm »
Roger (pilot talk for OK) .. just started.. and as scaryitalian points out.. B/W ..  I thought I had found a BLUE (white?) Elliptical -- but there was no button one..  ;)
 
If only time didn't take so long ... we'd be there by now

EricFDiaz

  • Guest
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #5 on: November 28, 2007, 06:57:50 pm »
Copy that, Jay.  ;D ;D ;D

scaryitalian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 575
  • ... all your letters in the sand ...
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2007, 07:27:50 pm »
scary off!

Sorry, fellow Zooites: after nearly two hours I'm getting a bit cross-eyed...  :'(

Please everyone, if you find a lovely black-and-white merger, can you post it here for me?

TIA
... all the places I have been remind me there is none
to match the cool green rolling hills of Earth ...

--> Tim Staffell, "Earth" (Smile) <--


Hanny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17256
  • "Voorwerp kid"
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #7 on: November 29, 2007, 05:38:14 am »
OKAY ;D

Edit: Scary, do you think this is one? :)

« Last Edit: November 29, 2007, 05:51:35 am by Hanny »

Rick Nowell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
  • Bristol, U.K.
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #8 on: November 29, 2007, 02:55:25 pm »
When i get a b&w image, but i then look at the image in SDSS ('cos it's colour'd), is that cheating?

fluffyporcupine

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8179
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2007, 02:59:26 pm »
When i get a b&w image, but i then look at the image in SDSS ('cos it's colour'd), is that cheating?
yes

Rick Nowell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
  • Bristol, U.K.
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #10 on: November 29, 2007, 03:50:29 pm »
I haven't quite got my head around the idea....do you want an accurate classification thanks to the use of SDSS, in which case all the b&w's and reversals are as naught, or do you want a classification based SOLELY on the image in the Galaxy Analysis?

I'll use as much information as possible to make a decision, which means, alot of the time, i'll be using SDSS: but here i can see the Galaxy's true colour or whether it is reversed, which defeats the point. As i can see 1 or 2 more images through using SDSS, doesn't
that negate the image in the Analysis?

Confused...
« Last Edit: November 29, 2007, 03:56:34 pm by Rick Nowell »

fluffyporcupine

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8179
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2007, 04:04:22 pm »
have you seen this thread? it may shed some light on the matter as it were ;) :)


randyconk

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2007, 12:02:51 am »
The B&W pics for the most part make it easier to see the spirals. BUT I've just noticed that some of them have reversed parallax. That means that an ACW appears as CW. Also, I've noticed that some of the images seem to be rotated 90/270 degrees from what SDSS shows. (It was VERY noticeable on some images with satellite streaks.

I'm going to stop analyzing until these pics are updated to match SDSS orientation and parallax. I can't reliably give an analysis of conflicting information.

Edd

  • Admin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2638
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2007, 01:06:31 am »
Galaxy Ref: 587739827134529837 - and an odd oddball (thought sat track, but looks more like internal reflection)

A sat track combined with a plate join
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz

Johnny

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2007, 02:05:28 am »
Good evening folks,

I notice that you've reversed the images on the
initial page--apparently to gauge viewer bias.  One
factor you may want to consider is that when the
viewer magnifies the image by clicking on the ref. #
etc.,  the image flips back to the opposite
orientation.  If the viewer doesn't note the change
he/she may identify the "clock/anti-" based on the
magnified image and not the original.

Or, maybe I'm just befuddled.