Return to Home Page
Re: vsnet-obs 45730 Confusion SS UMI > Since it is unclear if the observation is filtered or unfiltered it > could just as easily be the other way around. Okay, VSNET has limited the usage of "CV" (unfiltered CCD observations, calibrated on V-band system). The reason is clearly written on the document I referred to on the VSNET format description. I have thereby been checking all "CV"-coded observations with a suspicion of potential errors. The reverse instance is thus less likely to occur. > If it had not been reported to the AAVSO separately no one would cast doubt > regarding the VSNET report. So this statement is not true. I casted doubt regarding Rodriguez's VSNET report itself, and the registration of the data was pended. This is our usual process. The present instance is only different that inconsistency was unambiguously found when comparing with the AAVSO-format report. If the observations had been only reported to the AAVSO, would the "validation process" of the AAVSO discriminate these potential errors? -- I would bet it wouldn't. If only solitary outburst detections were reported to the AAVSO, and not immediately noticed by the others, how one can validate the existence of the outbursts? VSNET pays every effort to avoid such circumstances, which in turn reflected on the AAVSO observers. The AAVSO validation process thus partly (even largely?) owes to the VSNET efforts. Speaking of the AAVSO validation as if it were a solitary process, perfectly separated from the rest of the world, is clearly wrong. > Actually Taichi Kato points out one of the negative aspects of VSNET. > VSNET does not validate it's observations, the AAVSO does. As stated above, this statement is not correct. This error was found during the "validation process" of the VSNET. We have registered more than 500 sets of observations rejected by this validation process even in the past half year (although I can't compare the quality of the validation processes between the AAVSO and VSNET, I don't feel that the former is significantly superior). The better thing in VSNET is that there are "many eyes" on publicly reported data, whose subtle errors would otherwise have been overlooked -- we can see a number of excellent instances how other observers noticed different observers' errors. Error finding is a cooperative work in VSNET, whereas the AAVSO validation is limited to a more centralized effort: this is a great difference. There is clearly an advantage of vsnet-obs type public immediate circulation of observations in the validating process. The rest of Dan Kaiser's remark is thus meaningless. Regards, Taichi Kato
Return to the Powerful Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
