If you click on the limiting mag it also has flux still the fact the 31 mag mistake, a BIg one, has been corrected!
Yes, but you do not have to enter the limiting mag/flux, while the apparent magnitude is mandatory to be stated in the report. The discovery magnitude should be the apparent magnitude of the transient and not the flux. In addition, you have put the wrong filter in the report, it should be g-sloan and not r-sloan.
Ine 
Yes, I do know that there are more units of measurement. And flux is also a term used in physics and mathematics. You also have electric flux etc.
Even though I am an amateur and I may know less than someone else in certain areas, I think reporting is serious business and not just doing something because you think you know better than what is actually required!
Ine
Reporting archival transients isnt particularly valuable, so I donāt quite understand the condescension at the mistakes, but yes, even archival reports should be accurate.
For the record, its comments like this that disengage amateurs from science. Reporting something with no experience and making a few errors ā thinking you know better than what is required. Archival transients are the perfect way to learn how to report as thereās no way to follow them up, so mistakes donāt really matter and can be corrected while becoming a learning moment.
1 Like
Quote: For the record, its comments like this that disengage amateurs from science. Reporting something with no experience and making a few errors ā thinking you know better than what is required. Archival transients are the perfect way to learn how to report as thereās no way to follow them up, so mistakes donāt really matter and can be corrected while becoming a learning moment.:quote
Hello,
I donāt agree with you at all! I find it questionable that you think so condescendingly and nonchalantly about an official transient report in the TNS, which is an official body of the IAU. Itās not a playground to experiment with, is it?
And you also disadvantage other amateurs who are seriously involved in science. Even if it is an archival transient, It is bad to make mistakes through self-will carelessness in an official report! It shows a very unprofessional attitude and youāre giving amateur astronomy a bad reputation!
If you donāt take this seriously then you donāt take the whole science seriously. Then you better go do something else.
In addition. Once youāve submitted a report, you canāt change it except for the host galaxy and its redshift.
And BTW, it is precisely the immature comments you make that scare away serious citizen scientists just you all did with c_cld (Claude)
As it happens, they do have a sandbox where you can play around and get used to submitting.
Not entirely sure what you mean by condescendingly - I stated itās not possible to follow up archival transients, which is factually correct. Itās unlikely it would even be used in a statistical study as itās not been spectroscopically confirmed (and never can be). So ultimately, thereās very little consequence to the error, as this will very likely never be used in a serious scientific analysis.
See, itās this attitude thatās the problem. āSelf-will carelessnessā. You assume they have the same experience as you and simply know how to report, but chose to not do it properly. You claim to care about amateurs getting involved, so scolding instead of teaching is a weird standpoint to take.
And there we goā¦ You let it slipā¦ you donāt care about amateur astronomy, you just like feeling superior and pointing out peoples mistakes. This is about as anti-amateur astronomy a statement as it is possible to make. āYou donāt know how to do this properly, so go awayā. There is even gatekeeping with amateur astronomy it seems, and what a shocker it comes from a GZ regular. Iāve said it before and Iāll say it again, that talk section is toxic af.
Oh look, here comes the superiority again. āSerious citizen scientistsā lmao. What Claude did was what youāve done. Instead of helping correct an inexperienced personās errors, he scolded them and made bizarre unfounded accusations.
Be better.
1 Like
In fairness, you have explained some of the concepts to them in this thread, so perhaps the ānot helping them to correct their mistakesā was unfair, but just look at your first post after I pointed out the 31st mag for what Iām getting at.
This whole rant makes absolutely no sense. Itās just reversed. Your answer is arrogance at its best. Childish, toxic and outrageous!!
In addition, I have often explained in detail on this forum how you can report in the TNS. Both on the Galaxy Zoo forum and here. And there are several members (you know who I mean!) who have explained it in detail a dozen times on the Galaxy Zoo forum, also how to work with APT ( Aperture Photometry Tool) reference target and an equation. I also reported more often for other members who couldnāt or didnāt have a TNS account. So your wild accusations are nasty and far from the truth!
I learned a lot from those so called " Galaxy Zoo members with an attitude" then why canāt you?? What you say about Galaxy Zoo is absolutely not true. I was made to feel very welcome from the start even though I was a beginner at the time.
Why report if you donāt know how to report yet. Canāt you wait until you have a little more knowledge?? Thatās not wrong at all!! But no, impatience prevails hereā¦
My first 30 discovered transients were reported by another member. I only started reporting when I had gained enough knowledge to report. I made my first report under the supervision of another Galaxy Zoo member.
quote: Itās unlikely it would even be used in a statistical study as itās not been spectroscopically confirmed (and never can be). So ultimately, thereās very little consequence to the error, as this will very likely never be used in a serious scientific analysis.:quote
Thatās not the point! You still donāt get it! If youāre careless about this, youāll probably be just as careless about other scientific publications and reports. Your whole attitude is wrong. The derogatory view you have on archival transients alone is wrong, even if what you say about archival transients is correct in terms of science!
Sorry but I think thatās enough. This is clearly not the place you want to be to enjoy astronomy. Short-sightedness (tunnel vision) dominates everything here by some members.
Ine
Donāt misquote me to straw man. Itās not a good look.
I donāt have a derogatory view - I have a view shaped by the science, which as you just stated, was correct.
You canāt assume that everyone who wants to report a transient will be seeking out your posts on various forums. Iām sure that some GZ folks and people on this forum will have seen them, but there will be plenty of people who havenāt.
You could have shown him how to do reports correctly, without making him feel like crap about his mistakes, but you chose not to. Itās disappointing, as this could have been a great learning experience for him. But by all means have a go at me for pointing that out. All that does is prove my point.
Youāve come to this thread to have a go at someone for a mistake that they made in good faith. This doesnāt strike me as promoting enjoyment of astronomy.
You know what Iām no longer going to argue with people who think so lightly about scientific reports, but also treat other (privacy) data so lightly. And think so lightly about errors in a report. If people donāt even want to make an effort to gain knowledge and just want to be stubborn that they ignore good advice. (And Iām not just talking about this report but also another report from someone else that is completely wrong) And you continue to think that way about reporting. then the limit has really been reached for me.
Real genuine scientists would find your vision cringeworthy thatās for shure!
Youāre talking about āto have a go on peopleā. Look at yourself what you are doing right now??? Look in the mirror! Speaking about good faithā¦No, it was ignoring advice not to use certain data to then be stubborn enough to use the (wrong) data.
I think iāve made it quite clear that any TNS reports should be as accurate as possible, and that the sandbox should be used for practise. My points have merely been about how we treat people who make mistakes in the process. Compassion vs contempt.
Huh? What privacy data?
Ine, I work with āreal genuine scientistsā. They help amateurs to learn frequently and help them overcome their errors with positivity. They also understand that inexperienced people will make mistakes and donāt assume that they will have seen material theyāve made about certain topics. They donāt call people careless for trying something new. Iāll stick with following their lead rather than yours.
Thanks for the information. I am probably about to correct this.
You know very well what I mean regarding privacy. But you still donāt get it what I mean regarding reporting. As for your collaboration with scientists, do you think you can impress me? Well, just to wake you up out of your dream, Iām not impressed at all.
Nope, I really donāt. Care to explain?
Nope, not to impress. Knowing/collaborating with scientists isnāt all that impressive on the face of it. You are well aware of the point I was making, because I said it quite literally immediately after saying I work with them. But you know that - you just like straw manning. Iāll refresh your recollection about the point I was making:
Okay, I donāt think continuing this discussion is going to be helpful for anyone.
@ine, @tombickle , letās give it a rest.
4 Likes
@William_Snell has no access to the viewer stated before but Here are the corrections.
He also stated earlier that he doesnāt have the app because he was unable to download it. He tried multiple times to download the app to calculate magnitude but unfortunately when he did, he gotted an error.
Also I need to also tell him he put the wrong unit and redshift.
The redshift is displayed in the HyperLEDA database. Outside of the DR footprint, the photo-z data for this galaxy is unavalible.
1 Like