Author Topic: Why we need you NOW  (Read 25928 times)

EricFDiaz

  • Guest
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #30 on: December 01, 2007, 08:47:03 pm »
Is this what you mean, fluffy? I classified this as a CW spiral WITHOUT going to SkyServer. If I can't do it without going to SkyServer, then I classify it as Star/Don't Know or in a case like this where it is clearly a spiral, Edge On/Unclear.

Galaxy Ref: 587735349649211442
« Last Edit: December 01, 2007, 08:59:47 pm by EricFDiaz »

fluffyporcupine

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8179
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #31 on: December 01, 2007, 10:23:13 pm »
almost, it was more zoomed in than that. a starforming area that was clearly part of a spiral arm but too close to tell rotation

EricFDiaz

  • Guest
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2007, 01:14:14 am »
almost, it was more zoomed in than that. a starforming area that was clearly part of a spiral arm but too close to tell rotation

In that case, fluffy I would have classified it as Edge On/Unclear. I know it's hard, but if you go to SkyServer before you classify the object then you are kind of defeating the purpose of testing for human bias in our classifications. Ask yourself this: if you're going to go to SkyServer anyway to help you classify an object then what's the point in modifying the GA image in the first place? Do you see what I mean?

fluffyporcupine

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8179
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2007, 11:44:15 am »
In that case, fluffy I would have classified it as Edge On/Unclear. I know it's hard, but if you go to SkyServer before you classify the object then you are kind of defeating the purpose of testing for human bias in our classifications. Ask yourself this: if you're going to go to SkyServer anyway to help you classify an object then what's the point in modifying the GA image in the first place? Do you see what I mean?

that is what went thru my mind. i did classify eo/u, i usually try not to look at skysever at the moment (well until after i've classified it and i think it may be an interesting object to look at), but its hard to classify somethign as eo/u when you know that if you zoomed out you could classify it more accurately!

Rick Nowell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
  • Bristol, U.K.
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #34 on: December 02, 2007, 12:30:00 pm »
...if you go to SkyServer before you classify the object then you are kind of defeating
the purpose of testing for human bias in our classifications.

I disagree. As long as i do not change my mind when using Skyserver/SDSS, i
believe it is MORE helpful to see the 'real McCoy', as i can then test my own judgement.
Through doing it this way, every, roughly, 150 images i analyse 1 may be harder
EITHER WAY. If i make the judgement on what is on the Analysis page, regardless
of what information i have gleaned in SDSS, then that is fair enough, i think.
Because of being able to test one against the other, i can observe my own bias.

People have pattern-recognition hardwired into their brain, otherwise we could not tell
shapes to start off with (obvious). What might be less obvious is the effect that, say,
learning letters has on how we view patterns. What has become eerily apparent is that
images that are 's' shaped are, for myself, harder to analyse when rotated through 90/270
degrees. An immediately recognisable 'pattern' is less recognisable when on its side.

How many times in my life have i sat down and looked at very many images and been able
to test one against the other to see that effect? My own 'feeling' would be that <0.5% of
the images are harder to gauge because of a difference in pattern orientation: this does
not stop me from making a correct decision, but merely makes it less automatic. i find the
absence of colour much more of a 'hindrance'.


GES

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2007, 01:34:31 am »
The fuzzy blobs (particularly those with few pixels) fall into the "DON'T KNOW" category no matter what color they are.

MoreInput

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2007, 10:17:23 pm »
HI all!

I just started today with the new pics, and I feel it is much more easier. I have much more successful pictures (like spiral), and not so much garbage. So it is just more fun than before.

In general I don't look at the original pics, just have a short look at the galaxy and classify it. Can't wait for GalaxyZoo II.

Best regards,
  Stefan
... need more input

Alice

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 31782
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #37 on: December 09, 2007, 10:32:59 pm »
Check out this latest report on biased images - trust me, it'll really make your day!  ;D

Hanny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17256
  • "Voorwerp kid"
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #38 on: December 10, 2007, 07:46:22 am »
Check out this latest report on biased images - trust me, it'll really make your day!  ;D

It does! Thanks for the link Alice! :D

quarkspin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4206
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #39 on: December 11, 2007, 10:28:34 pm »
Happily I missed all this and carried on as usual.
50, no problem. Ok I'll stop going off piste for a while:)

Q

JoJeFree

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #40 on: December 14, 2007, 11:31:10 pm »
Well, I guess this be classified as a B&W merger
Galaxy Ref: 587742012748726355

but..... on going to the SDSS didsplay, and then zooming in on the SDSS DR6 finding chart, it looks like two
images pasted together.  Artifact??? Jez curious

njtm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • The Wonder Down Under :)
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #41 on: December 15, 2007, 01:10:08 am »
Hi JoJe. I think they're overlapping rather than merging. BTW I like how you posted in this thread as if you want feed back now. ;D Sorry I missed by an hour and a half.

pluk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7161
  • serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulance
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #42 on: December 15, 2007, 09:32:30 am »
Well, I guess this be classified as a B&W merger
Galaxy Ref: 587742012748726355
but..... on going to the SDSS didsplay, and then zooming in on the SDSS DR6 finding chart, it looks like two
images pasted together.  Artifact??? Jez curious


If you follow the link below to the Finding Chart Tool, all set to display your object and a few helpful gridlines.
Then you can zoom in and you'll see exactly where and how the images have been stitched together ;)

http://cas.sdss.org/astro/en/tools/chart/chart.asp?ra=189.10970027&dec=21.60837803&scale=3.16896&opt=FD

Hth.
We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run. - Roy Amara, engineer, futurist (b. 1925)

ballettlover

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #43 on: December 15, 2007, 10:22:58 am »
Quote
Twisting 180 degrees is not the same as a reflection (just to be pedantic)

As someone who used to earn a living, of sorts, teaching elementary transformation geometry, I applaud Edd's separation of these two transformations, which ain't the same at all. My pupils would have got null points for saying they were the same. 

I guess one of the most practical examples of the difference lies in chemistry, with stereo-isomers (one molecule is a reflection of another).  There is no way that the two can be laid on top of one another ie through rotation, and although having similar properties they will display some differences, as well.

BTW, rotations are always about a point, whereas reflections are about an axis. 

As my name would suggest, I'm a ballet fan.  Classical ballet, like classical architecture, uses reflection symmetry  a lot, as we seem to be wired to find such symmetries attractive eg symmetrical faces get people hot more than assymetrical ones.  A few ballets have been re-choreographed for in-the-round areans with rotational, rather than reflective symmetry and the effect is  intriguing.

So Edd, no need to include "pedantry" in the skills section of your next CV.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 11:07:03 am by ballettlover »

john1a

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • At the Zoo since the beginning.
    • View Profile
Re: Why we need you NOW
« Reply #44 on: December 22, 2007, 10:26:45 am »

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


http://cas.sdss.org/astro/en/tools/explore/obj.asp?id=588015508751384594
« Last Edit: December 22, 2007, 10:28:48 am by john1a »