Re: [vsnet-chat 5127] Curious observations As an observer (at least in the past) I understand these circumstances can happen any time, and most of them are easy to distinguish (other than typos in observed times etc.). > 1- Typos- I can see "V383 Mon should read V838 Mon" etc. and silently corrected these apparent errors, and deleted at least some observations of "magnitude 0.0" or something like that. > 2-Mis-identifications- These cases are also well known. In these cases, the observer often can tell which observation is wrong or which asterism confused the identification. As Mike has shown, this kind of erraneous observation is mostly frequently met when the observer is yet unfamiliar with the field. Y. Watanabe's case in V838 Mon (rapid fading) perfectly matches this condition. But this kind of errors would not explain errors made by well-experienced observers in nightly observed fields. > Most amateurs do this because it is fun, but deep down I think many of us do > it because it is also challenging and sometimes difficult. If it were too > easy it would be boring. So mistakes will happen. I can fully understand unavoidable mistakes under such challenging conditions. They are of more "random" in nature (than what I wrote yesterday), and often appear as false alarms or uncertain outburst detections. We deliberately handle these observations, and often try to check the validity of these possible detections. These circumstances would not adequately explain delayed fading of outbursts, though... > Observers can check their own observations against what other observers are > reporting, and others may note your mistakes and report them to you to > correct. As long as it is done in a courteous and professional manner I > don't think anyone minds. We're all friends here. Prefectly correct! This is the key process of "quality control" in VSNET! Regards, Taichi Kato