[vsnet-chat 4274] (fwd) Re: vsnet chat topics

[Taichi Kato <tkato>]

From srh@xtra.co.nz Fri Apr 20 20:10 JST 2001
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:10:13 +1200
From: Stephen Hovell <srh@xtra.co.nz>
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Taichi Kato <tkato@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: [vsnet-chat 4263] Re: vsnet chat topics
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Length: 2053

I haven't done any variable star observing for about 6-7 years now but in the
VSS of RASNZ we used to qualify our observations as 1, 2, 3.
1= top quality obs, excellent seeing etc;
2= not as certain, but still a good obs
3= not too reliable; maybe high cloud, tired observer, at limiting magnitude
etc. If I used this I would put a note as to why I used it.

So if I saw AH ERI at 13.8 and was very sure I would classify it as 1. But if
it were at 14.5 and there was a marked degree of uncertainty it may have been
3. I used to be surprised at how accurate a lot of my 3's were when comparing
them with other positive observations.

It struck me as a good system.

Stephen Hovell
(NZ and not too far from Stan walker)

Taichi Kato wrote:

> Re: [vsnet-chat 4257] Re: vsnet chat topics
>
> Lew Cook wrote:
>
> > Dr. Kato has an excellent point: report all observations. Might I
> > respectfully point out that much of our present controversy might
> > have been avoided it we ALL reported ALL our observations, including
> > negative and uncertain ones, in a prompt and timely fashion, denoting
> > observations we are unsure of with a mark (: or ?) and perhaps with
> > an accompanying definitive observation such as
> >
> > UR LUP 13.0?
> > UR LUP <12.6
> >
> > [...]
>
>     A potential problem arises in the present case of "possible outburst
> of QW Ser" suggested (privately) by Patrick Schmeer.  If there is no
> additional observation, should he register his possible postive observation,
> or should he withdraw it because there is no confirmation?  Though I suppose
> the latter approach might be more frequently taken, this could introduce
> additional bias.  My preference is the first approach, to report all
> observations as they were preceived.  Some possible positive sightings
> may turn out to be spurious, and other negative observations may turn
> out to be simple chance non-detection of true outbursts, but are
> statistically less biased than those observations suffering from retrograde
> selections.
>
> Regards,
> Taichi Kato

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp