I would delete it. Otherwise at least remove the names (IMHO)
Two members being falsely accused in public based on nothing. Not even an apology yet…
Two members being falsely accused in public based on nothing. Not even an apology yet…
Suspicious quantities of likes on some user’s images
I would not delete it.
Alphas work is great but the community should take any chance to point at the fact that 600k asa scopes at top places are anything but amateur astronomy.
Last 2 weeks alone there were 3 iotd taken with one meter scopes.
Rule number 2 of iotd.
Its goal is to promote the output of the amateur astrophotography community to a wider audience, thus increasing interest in this wonderful hobby.
Alphas work is great but the community should take any chance to point at the fact that 600k asa scopes at top places are anything but amateur astronomy.
Last 2 weeks alone there were 3 iotd taken with one meter scopes.
Rule number 2 of iotd.
Its goal is to promote the output of the amateur astrophotography community to a wider audience, thus increasing interest in this wonderful hobby.
Anderl:
Alphas work is great but the community should take any chance to point at the fact that 600k asa scopes at top places are anything but amateur astronomy.
Last 2 weeks alone there were 3 iotd taken with one meter scopes.
It is always going to be the case that $600K scopes will, in good hands, produce better images. Honestly, that does not bother me so much, as long as the imager has also put in some sweat equity. See for example, these descriptions:
https://www.astrobin.com/8rstol/
https://www.astrobin.com/per3ux/B/
So I would say that images taken from scopes such as the above (and other similar remote imagers) deserve the awards they get.
On the flip side, from the above posts, you can see just how much effort a pure processor is NOT putting in when they generate a image from data purchased from someone else who has put in that effort. It just makes no sense to treat those two cases the same. It has gotten to the point where people have access to images taken from real professional observatories (such as those run by universities) and these are lumped together with true amateur images. I am not sure how highlighting an image generated from data taken from a professional source can be considered to advance interest in amateur astronomy, but that's just my perspective.
What I did request, in a different thread, was that images be clearly marked for image source to understand what role the author actually played in the generation of the image. I would go further and request that it be made a requirement for a badged image that the imager is clear whether they own (and set up) the equipment or whether that image is purely processed from data acquired from elsewhere. I have seen many IOTDs where the imagers have not categorized the source correctly.
Helpful Insightful Engaging
Ok, after a while we ended up, again, with a variation of a topic that has been raised many times before, fair enough, but regarding the original post, which was the suspicion about a couple of members on AB manipulating the numbers of likes or “figured out how to game…”, Salvatore has already answered very clear, and being so, there is no more to add, except that I do agree that a delicate issue, regarding specific users should be treated privately first.
Cheers and CS to everyone.
Cheers and CS to everyone.
The OP mentions his misgivings about possibly his own jealousy and paranoia leading him to post. I think the wise and more honest action would have been to fully explore his own motivations, and then, if he still believes there's some kind of "cheating" going on, to contact Salvatore in private.
Alpha did not deserve this accusation, his images are superb and, yes, he is fortunate enough to have access to expensive equipment, but that's not the only thing that matters. I've seen images on Astrobin taken with a Celestron 9.25 Edge that are far better than images taken with a Planewave 12.5. But in the hands of an expert imager and processor, I am sure the Planewave 12.5 would be the preferred scope. My point is that processing skills are learned and honed through a lot of practice and, if a person is lucky enough to have access to a dark sky and high-end gear, that's no reason to berate him and no justification to accuse him of cheating.
Alpha did not deserve this accusation, his images are superb and, yes, he is fortunate enough to have access to expensive equipment, but that's not the only thing that matters. I've seen images on Astrobin taken with a Celestron 9.25 Edge that are far better than images taken with a Planewave 12.5. But in the hands of an expert imager and processor, I am sure the Planewave 12.5 would be the preferred scope. My point is that processing skills are learned and honed through a lot of practice and, if a person is lucky enough to have access to a dark sky and high-end gear, that's no reason to berate him and no justification to accuse him of cheating.
Well Written Insightful Respectful Engaging Supportive
Jerry Gerber:
Accusing someone of a misdeed publicly is unethical, unless, for example, it's some well known leader of a powerful country who is a convicted felon and known criminal.
Can we please keep politics out of Astrobin? The last time this came up, the thread had to be locked and even deleted.
Well Written
Arun H:Jerry Gerber:
Accusing someone of a misdeed publicly is unethical, unless, for example, it's some well known leader of a powerful country who is a convicted felon and known criminal.
Can we please keep politics out of Astrobin? The last time this came up, the thread had to be locked and even deleted.
Done.
Jerry Gerber:
The OP mentions his misgivings about possibly his own jealousy and paranoia leading him to post. I think the wise and more honest action would have been to fully explore his own motivations, and then, if he still believes there's some kind of "cheating" going on, to contact Salvatore in private.
Alpha did not deserve this accusation, his images are superb and, yes, he is fortunate enough to have access to expensive equipment, but that's not the only thing that matters. I've seen images on Astrobin taken with a Celestron 9.25 Edge that are far better than images taken with a Planewave 12.5. But in the hands of an expert imager and processor, I am sure the Planewave 12.5 would be the preferred scope. My point is that processing skills are learned and honed through a lot of practice and, if a person is lucky enough to have access to a dark sky and high-end gear, that's no reason to berate him and no justification to accuse him of cheating.
I fully agree. Alpha follows around as many people as he has followers. and he regularly gives out likes. And replies to every single comment. Hardly the actions of someone trying to game the system. To be publicly accused like this is not on. This thread should be removed. Astrobin is becoming a bit ridiculous. It seems every day there is a new thread with people whining about how unfair the awards system is. All very odd to me, as I signed up for a hobby not a competition.
Gilmour Dickson · Jul 27, 2025, 08:12 AM
It seems every day there is a new thread with people whining about how unfair the awards system is. All very odd to me, as I signed up for a hobby not a competition.
I don't think AstroBin is to blame for the way some people approach this hobby. This topic wasn't even about the IOTD/TP initially, but just about Likes.
Likes are a social dynamic, and if somebody takes a competitive angle to something so common on the Internet as Likes, I'd say this is not an AstroBin problem.
Well Written
Ha, reminds me of my own envy when I started this hobby. Everytime I achieved some progress, I just wondered, why doesn't it get honoured enough? Alpha and Co are fortunate, yes, and let them be. Everyone has something they can be proud of. I am lucky I can see new satellites being built and talk to my colleagues about the satellites' technology, but I am not allowed to share that. So that's a inner happy Michael (not like in Severance!!! lol).
When you look at the post of people in this thread why say they also have many followers, and yes, they do have 1000+ followers, look at their post, 100+ views but only 4 likes!
What does this tell you? Likes are mostly done so the other also likes your posts. And that is done for photos, nothing else.
I learned now, I am enjoying this hobby with my own abilities and achievements. I learned how to filter what I want to see and yes, I also like for the hope to get likes back. (shame, shame, shame).
Yes, Alpha and Co also got my attention on this frequent appearance, and after a short reactional envy I feel happy for them, let them. I've seen the same discussion about someone's image from a remote observatory and the guy is famous on the German YouTube Astro community. So he is part of this remote observatory and talks about it.
The only thing I don't like here and in other communities is arrogant people who tell you to use Google when asking a question.
CS,
Michael
When you look at the post of people in this thread why say they also have many followers, and yes, they do have 1000+ followers, look at their post, 100+ views but only 4 likes!
What does this tell you? Likes are mostly done so the other also likes your posts. And that is done for photos, nothing else.
I learned now, I am enjoying this hobby with my own abilities and achievements. I learned how to filter what I want to see and yes, I also like for the hope to get likes back. (shame, shame, shame).
Yes, Alpha and Co also got my attention on this frequent appearance, and after a short reactional envy I feel happy for them, let them. I've seen the same discussion about someone's image from a remote observatory and the guy is famous on the German YouTube Astro community. So he is part of this remote observatory and talks about it.
The only thing I don't like here and in other communities is arrogant people who tell you to use Google when asking a question.
CS,
Michael
All those replies and posts indicate to me that there is a certain amount of discomfort within the group with regard to recognition of astrophotos published. No surprise for me because it seems to be like a race between a Ferrari and a Beatle - both get to the finish (posting an astrophotograph) but that is already the only thing in common.
It is not possible to compare a photograph taken with a 1m ASA with one taken with a 6inch refractor - even if both instruments had been operated by experts. No way!
I tried to understand the mindset of the judges who select IOTDs but I failed - some IOTDs are selected for reasons not understandable for me, other photographs become IOTDs because of their details, their composition, their uniqueness… well, that is life. Judges are humans and their judging is subjective.
But yes, I also see that unless it is a very unusual photograph, there seems to be a slight preference for selecting results taken with larger scopes than with smaller ones. And yes, I do understand why - look at an image of a certain galaxy taken with a CDK24 and compare it honestly with one taken with a 6" refractor - there is a world of small and fine details separating those two images. It becomes different for nebulae, for SHO and similar emission targets - here the processing and balancing of channels becomes important plus the quality of the stars in that image. And here, the difference of a 24" and a 6" scope is not very interesting - processing, balancing and finalising, that is important.
For all targets, one aspect is often overlooked - composition. I personally prefer images in which the star spikes are either under 0/180 or 45 degrees - that tells me that the person who aligned to camera/optics cared. If not possible during image acquisition, it should be done before posting - rotate the image to make the spikes looking orderly. Unfortunately, many of the raw data from (as example) Telescope Live need to be rotated before posting, for some it is just not possible without cropping too many important details.
Well, thats my viewpoint…. thanks for enduring my long sermon :-) - and one last word: Alpha and companion do a great job and yes, their excellent equipment helps - but the equipment does not work without the brains of the operators…
It is not possible to compare a photograph taken with a 1m ASA with one taken with a 6inch refractor - even if both instruments had been operated by experts. No way!
I tried to understand the mindset of the judges who select IOTDs but I failed - some IOTDs are selected for reasons not understandable for me, other photographs become IOTDs because of their details, their composition, their uniqueness… well, that is life. Judges are humans and their judging is subjective.
But yes, I also see that unless it is a very unusual photograph, there seems to be a slight preference for selecting results taken with larger scopes than with smaller ones. And yes, I do understand why - look at an image of a certain galaxy taken with a CDK24 and compare it honestly with one taken with a 6" refractor - there is a world of small and fine details separating those two images. It becomes different for nebulae, for SHO and similar emission targets - here the processing and balancing of channels becomes important plus the quality of the stars in that image. And here, the difference of a 24" and a 6" scope is not very interesting - processing, balancing and finalising, that is important.
For all targets, one aspect is often overlooked - composition. I personally prefer images in which the star spikes are either under 0/180 or 45 degrees - that tells me that the person who aligned to camera/optics cared. If not possible during image acquisition, it should be done before posting - rotate the image to make the spikes looking orderly. Unfortunately, many of the raw data from (as example) Telescope Live need to be rotated before posting, for some it is just not possible without cropping too many important details.
Well, thats my viewpoint…. thanks for enduring my long sermon :-) - and one last word: Alpha and companion do a great job and yes, their excellent equipment helps - but the equipment does not work without the brains of the operators…
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging
John Hayes, as usual, makes brilliant points! For me, astrophotography is a journey of learning. Astrobin's contributors provide an excellent database for benchmarking my skills at acquisition and processing of DSO images. A big part of the fun is the opportunity to challenge myself and learn something new.
Well Written Respectful
Gilmour Dickson:
Astrobin is becoming a bit ridiculous. It seems every day there is a new thread with people whining about how unfair the awards system is. All very odd to me, as I signed up for a hobby not a competition.
Maybe the reason so many people are "whining" is because those "whining" have a point that no one has been able to actually refute.
If you are running a marathon where one set of people are starting at the 20 km mark (processors only) while another set (acquirers and processors) have to run a full marathon , I would say the race is inherently unfair and the problem isn't with the people that are "whining" but more with the people telling the "whiners" not to "whine". Frankly, for me, it isn't about the awards necessarily, it is simply about the inherent problems in a community we are all invested in that causes friction and really does need to be addressed.
Simply admit that it is and at least insist on making sure the people that are only processing accurately describe their images. That's all. As far as "likes", I couldn't care less if an image has 20 likes of a thousand. Plenty of images with 30-40 likes make IOTD, so there is little correlation between quality and likes. It is more a social media aspect - though someone with lots of awards will naturally have lots of followers and hence lots of likes.
Engaging
Arun H:
If you are running a marathon where one set of people are starting at the 20 km mark (processors only) while another set (acquirers and processors) have to run a full marathon
The data is not magically captured though. Setup, target selection, and image acquisition still occurs in the normal way. Many customers of various services out there will request for a specific project to be captured for them, rather than buying a set of pre-captured data. Do we then need a system to vet normal acquisition vs canned projects already completed vs custom projects that are acquired identically to #1 (other than who is doing the work)?
Also, I don't get the obsession with image calibration work being seen as some hallmark of goodness. It is the worst part of this hobby, IMO, and is the number one benefit of buying data in master format. You can completely skip the tedious and not fun calibration sequence entirely.
Back to the addressing of the issue you mentioned -- if someone buys a set of data during a stretch of cloudy weather for them, should we classify that differently from those that obtained a set of data during a clear stretch of weather for them? That is the other advantage to having quality data available -- being able to obtain data to work with, when you otherwise cannot. Furthermore, do we classify data from the southern hemisphere in some normalized fashion for people that live in the southern hemisphere vs those that do not?
At the end of the day, it is all astro data. Whether we take it and sell it to a customer over time, take it directly for a customer at an agreed upon time, or take it in another hemisphere the customer is not located in -- it is all valid astrophotography data. It is all processed the same, and in post we see significant differences in the outcomes using the exact same masters. So if the awards process is heavily tilted toward rewarding the post-processing results -- then I think no change is needed at all in terms of the process itself.
What needs to change, IMHO, is the old thought process that buying data is bad. The era in which that change becomes more real, and it will come eventually as the number of consumers of purchased data is only increasing over time, should lead us to a place where this whole debacle naturally disappears and the results speak for themselves. I want to repeat that the process itself is already there, the people on the other hand are not.
Georg N. Nyman:
For all targets, one aspect is often overlooked - composition. I personally prefer images in which the star spikes are either under 0/180 or 45 degrees - that tells me that the person who aligned to camera/optics cared. If not possible during image acquisition, it should be done before posting - rotate the image to make the spikes looking orderly.
Hi George,
This is a very interesting view point. I also prefer 0/180 or 45 deg spikes. But in reality, you need to realize this is not always possible. For most of us, rotating the OTA is a very rare practice. This applies to backyard and travel imagers, and is more true for remote imagers. I think I can give credits to those whose spikes are aligned to north-south/east-west, or 45 degrees. This means they care about this aesthetic aspect and they do it carefully. On the other hand, this doesn't automatically mean the spikes will be 0/180 or 45 deg in the images. This is because it sometimes requires rotating the camera orientation to achieve optimal framing for some objects. If one just rotates the camera orientation without rotating the OTA, he/she can't maintain the orientation of the spikes in the image. This is just not practically possible, until someday someone invents an electric OTA rotator I think.
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging
Wei-Hao Wang:Georg N. Nyman:
For all targets, one aspect is often overlooked - composition. I personally prefer images in which the star spikes are either under 0/180 or 45 degrees - that tells me that the person who aligned to camera/optics cared. If not possible during image acquisition, it should be done before posting - rotate the image to make the spikes looking orderly.
Hi George,
This is a very interesting view point. I also prefer 0/180 or 45 deg spikes. But in reality, you need to realize this is not always possible. For most of us, rotating the OTA is a very rare practice. This applies to backyard and travel imagers, and is more true for remote imagers. I think I can give credits to those whose spikes are aligned to north-south/east-west, or 45 degrees. This means they care about this aesthetic aspect and they do it carefully. On the other hand, this doesn't automatically mean the spikes will be 0/180 or 45 deg in the images. This is because it sometimes requires rotating the camera orientation to achieve optimal framing for some objects. If one just rotates the camera orientation without rotating the OTA, he/she can't maintain the orientation of the spikes in the image. This is just not practically possible, until someday someone invents an electric OTA rotator I think.
The spiders are also not mounted identically on all of the scopes. For example, on an RCOS the 0/180 sky position results in X stars, while a CDK at the same sky position results in + stars.
Well Written Insightful Concise
Arun H:
Maybe the reason so many people are "whining" is because those "whining" have a point that no one has been able to actually refute.
If you are running a marathon where one set of people are starting at the 20 km mark (processors only) while another set (acquirers and processors) have to run a full marathon , I would say the race is inherently unfair and the problem isn't with the people that are "whining" but more with the people telling the "whiners" not to "whine". Frankly, for me, it isn't about the awards necessarily, it is simply about the inherent problems in a community we are all invested in that causes friction and really does need to be addressed.
Simply admit that it is and at least insist on making sure the people that are only processing accurately describe their images. That's all. As far as "likes", I couldn't care less if an image has 20 likes of a thousand. Plenty of images with 30-40 likes make IOTD, so there is little correlation between quality and likes. It is more a social media aspect - though someone with lots of awards will naturally have lots of followers and hence lots of likes.
I'd go a step further and cut the Gordian knot once and for good: No awards what-so-friggin-ever to any remotely acquired image. None. At. All.
Dark Matters Astrophotography:
Back to the addressing of the issue you mentioned -- if someone buys a set of data during a stretch of cloudy weather for them, should we classify that differently from those that obtained a set of data during a clear stretch of weather for them? That is the other advantage to having quality data available -- being able to obtain data to work with, when you otherwise cannot. Furthermore, do we classify data from the southern hemisphere in some normalized fashion for people that live in the southern hemisphere vs those that do not?
This unnecessarily clouds the issue and adds irrelevant factors. It is as simple as looking at an image and looking at what effort an imager has put in. It has nothing to do with clear or cloudy weather at the imager's location. Acquisition is well over 50% of the efforts and well over 50% of the investment.
There is, by the way, no question that there are benefits to using purchased data. I am not calling for a "ban" of any kind on it. and I don't think anyone is. It provides, as you note, several benefits, such as obtaining high quality data that would be impossible to obtain from your location. And it is a way for those of limited mobility or other handicaps to derive enjoyment.
It is as simple as recognizing the effort the named imager has put into a highlighted image accurately. Don't change the IOTD system - simply make sure images submitted have a requirement that the imager's contributions be accurately recorded. As I noted - several awarded images taken with 1 meter scopes do not even record that the data was taken from a set of equipment the imager does not own. If you are using purchased data, or data from equipment you don't own, or data someone else gave you to process, mark it accordingly so there is no question.
Helpful Insightful Engaging
Arun H:Dark Matters Astrophotography:
Back to the addressing of the issue you mentioned -- if someone buys a set of data during a stretch of cloudy weather for them, should we classify that differently from those that obtained a set of data during a clear stretch of weather for them? That is the other advantage to having quality data available -- being able to obtain data to work with, when you otherwise cannot. Furthermore, do we classify data from the southern hemisphere in some normalized fashion for people that live in the southern hemisphere vs those that do not?
This unnecessarily clouds the issue and adds irrelevant factors. It is as simple as looking at an image and looking at what effort an imager has put in. It has nothing to do with clear or cloudy weather at the imager's location. Acquisition is well over 50% of the efforts and well over 50% of the investment.
There is, by the way, no question that there are benefits to using purchased data. I am not calling for a "ban" of any kind on it. and I don't think anyone is. It provides, as you note, several benefits, such as obtaining high quality data that would be impossible to obtain from your location. And it is a way for those of limited mobility or other handicaps to derive enjoyment.
It is as simple as recognizing the effort the named imager has put into a highlighted image accurately. Don't change the IOTD system - simply make sure images submitted have a requirement that the imager's contributions be accurately recorded. As I noted - several awarded images taken with 1 meter scopes do not even record that the data was taken from a set of equipment the imager does not own. If you are using purchased data, or data from equipment you don't own, or data someone else gave you to process, mark it accordingly so there is no question.
It is not as simple as you have stated. What you have articulated here is that YOU place a high amount of value on the cost of the imaging system and the time it takes to collect the data. Not everyone feels the same, so how would the process be suitable for a broad range of perspectives using this "simple" (note: it is not that simple) method you have devised?
The "imagers contributions" does not mean anything useful to a broad range of people is my point entirely. What YOU have determined that to be suits you and those that think in the same way. There are other views of this though, and the process can't cut off their perspectives to suit one particular view or another.
I can tell you that we see a wide variance in the outputs using the exact same set of masters. The process as is today, without additional segregation manners placed on it, generally is able to award the better versions of these images accordingly. Well, within reason anyhow. Is that not the goal?
Today the images are classified as coming from a particular facility. Take this image for example:
https://app.astrobin.com/u/darkmattersastro?i=tbbf1v#gallery
This was taken by us, in Chile, on our CDK20 system and was wonderfully processed by Ani. It is clearly marked that the data is from Dark Matters Astrophotography. Both in the meta data for the image and in the description. What more would you suggest using your simple method? A giant banner on the top that says this was data acquired by someone other than the one posting it? That is already there, in the metadata.
It seems to be, you have a distaste for people using expensive equipment and others that are able to use the data from those systems. The latter portion of that (people using the data) seems to be the root of what you are against.
I can appreciate nice looking pictures no matter if remote, expensive or whatever but i am unsure if they should qualify for a image competition (even if said competition states to not be one). I think users like timothy martin really pushed the hobby with an very unique processing style, so idk. Regarding scope setups that are basically professional setups, thats cheating and has nothing to do with amateur work.
https://youtu.be/_ObPS9lukf0?si=8ZPc_xd2bPo1vvch
8:18
i guess trevor is a representing an quite big portion of the community with that statement.
https://youtu.be/_ObPS9lukf0?si=8ZPc_xd2bPo1vvch
8:18
i guess trevor is a representing an quite big portion of the community with that statement.
Dark Matters Astrophotography:
It is not as simple as you have stated. What you have articulated here is that YOU place a high amount of value on the cost of the imaging system and the time it takes to collect the data. Not everyone feels the same, so how would the process be suitable for a broad range of perspectives using this "simple" (note: it is not that simple) method you have devised?
Hi Bill - I agree. My views are entirely my own, which is why the only thing I am advocating for is "truth in labeling". The IOTD process is for Sal to manage. Making it clear what the source of the data is allows each individual viewer to place whatever value they choose to place on the image.
The linked image is a good example. It is positioned as a joint effort between Ani and yourself through the data that you sell through Dark Matters. However, under data source, it is labeled as "Own remote observatory". The simple solution would be selecting "External Source" from the menu below so that there is no question what the origin of the data is. Note that this is different than a collaboration between two private imagers - Dark Matters is a business and sells data.
Well Written
Arun H:Dark Matters Astrophotography:
It is not as simple as you have stated. What you have articulated here is that YOU place a high amount of value on the cost of the imaging system and the time it takes to collect the data. Not everyone feels the same, so how would the process be suitable for a broad range of perspectives using this "simple" (note: it is not that simple) method you have devised?
Hi Bill - I agree. My views are entirely my own, which is why the only thing I am advocating for is "truth in labeling". The IOTD process is for Sal to manage. Making it clear what the source of the data is allows each individual viewer to place whatever value they choose to place on the image.
The linked image is a good example. It is positioned as a joint effort between Ani and yourself through the data that you sell through Dark Matters. However, under data source, it is labeled as "Own remote observatory". The simple solution would be selecting "External Source" from the menu below so that there is no question what the origin of the data is. Note that this is different than a collaboration between two private imagers - Dark Matters is a business and sells data.
First, we encourage all of our customers to add us as a collaborator (if they so desire) on the images produced with our data. This is correct in our view as we did a part of the work and this increases the visibility that we were involved in the process. This is the same as someone taking their own data, and their friend(s) processed it for them. This is not positioned as a "joint-effort" at all. I am curious why you came to that conclusion.
Whether someone picks Amateur Facility or Remote Observatory -- to me, is just pedantic and is nothing more than picking nits for the sake of being thorny. It is clear to me and others that the data was obtained from Dark Matters Astrophotography. At the end of the day, that is what you are advocating for and I agree with that bit.
So we are back to the original issue at hand. What is the problem with people using data obtained from services like ours?
Dark Matters Astrophotography · Jul 27, 2025, 04:07 PM
Whether someone picks Amateur Facility or Remote Observatory
To be fair, “Amateur hosting facility” is for data that has been purchased/downloaded. “Remote observatory” is for equipment that the user owns or rents.
Well Written Concise
Salvatore Iovene:
{"type":"doc","content":[{"type":"blockquote","content":[{"type":"paragraph","content":[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"link","attrs":{"href":"/u/darkmattersastro","target":"_blank","rel":null,"class":"forum-quote-author"}}],"text":"Dark Matters Astrophotography"},{"type":"text","text":" · "},{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"link","attrs":{"href":"/forum/topic/184144?page=2#post-200891","target":"_blank","rel":null,"class":"forum-quote-timestamp"}}],"text":"Jul 27, 2025, 04:07 PM"}]},{"type":"paragraph","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Whether someone picks Amateur Facility or Remote Observatory"}]}]},{"type":"paragraph","content":[{"type":"text","text":"To be fair, “Amateur hosting facility” is for data that has been purchased/downloaded. “Remote observatory” is for equipment that the user owns or rents."}]}]}
I get the distinction in the metadata. My point was that it is entirely clear from my view that Ani used our data to produce the result. He’s even furthered that in the description of the image.
If image classification is the crux of the issue entirely then maybe just use Remote Observatory and have a checkbox instead for purchased/downloaded? Then there’s not two different trees of taxonomy required to express that?
Dark Matters Astrophotography:
Whether someone picks Amateur Facility or Remote Observatory -- to me, is just pedantic and is nothing more than picking nits for the sake of being thorny. It is clear to me and others that the data was obtained from Dark Matters Astrophotography. At the end of the day, that is what you are advocating for and I agree with that bit.
I've more than made my point. At the end of the day, I believe that there is value in accurate characterization of effort. I'm not going to beat this dead horse any more. Sal is ultimately the owner of this site, and he runs this community. If he does not see the value in this, that is the end of it. It may be clear to you, but it certainly wasn't clear to me, and it will not be clear to several others.
Well Written