[APBeta] Plan Creation Wizard

[Paul Rodman]

On Aug 10, 2008, at 13:00 , Michael Portuesi wrote:

> Okay, I'll nominate something for item (4) - "Your Suggestion Here".
>
> This would be to use a database as in approach (3), but rather than  
> you doing all the work to maintain the database, you provide a  
> feature in the program to allow users to vote for/rate interesting  
> and/or notable objects.  Perhaps this could be part of the  
> observation logging tab.
>
> User ratings would get sent back to AstroPlanner headquarters, which  
> would then be used to build the notable object database.
>
> This works a bit like the user ratings found on many websites, such  
> as Amazon.com.

I did contemplate something similar to that, but decided that (a) it  
was a lot more work than I wanted to put in at this stage, (b) it  
would have a start-up problem - i.e. would take time before there was  
a suitable body of objects and, (c) it ties in with a future planned  
feature (V3 or later)*.

However, I'm thinking of perhaps a hybrid of 1 and 3 below, or 2 and  
3. i.e. there is a database of suitable objects that I can create and  
improve at my leisure. If enough objects are not found there, then  
fall back on a catalogue search. I have a lot of "Deep Sky Wonders"  
type of books and a pile of S&Ts (that I was considering getting rid  
of) that I can use as fodder.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Paul R.

* an on-line database of observations, possibly on a new domain, that  
AP (and possibly others if I release the API) can contribute users'  
observations to, and retrieve observations from.

> On Aug 10, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Paul Rodman wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Your views greatly appreciated.
>>
>> One feature of AP V2 that's past it's use-by data is the Plan  
>> Creation Wizard, because:
>>
>> a. It's not really a "wizard" as such.
>> b. It's very restrictive (i.e. you have to supply a lot of  
>> irritating detail, and either get back too few, or two many hits.
>> c. It's very slow.
>>
>> Since it's the kind of feature that new users would use, it needs  
>> to be a lot better.
>>
>> Making the interface better, more "wizard-like", and less  
>> cluttered, I can manage. Problem (c) is the main one. What I'm  
>> struggling with is the actually algorithms.
>>
>> I can take three approaches (the first of which is the currently- 
>> used one):
>>
>> 1. Search all (or selected) catalogues for objects that satisfy  
>> carefully (sic) crafted rules (e.g. any galaxies that are brighter  
>> than mag A, and bigger than B).
>>
>> 2. Have a separate database of objects that are indexed by  
>> expertise level, object type, etc. Possibly pointing to the actual  
>> catalogue entries. The database would be created beforehand by  
>> running a special app on the entire catalogue set.
>>
>> 3. Create a database of objects manually, based on astronomy  
>> literature, S&T articles, NSOG data, user input, etc. This database  
>> could be updated on-line as new information becomes available.
>>
>> and possibly
>>
>> 4. Your suggestion here.
>>
>> All of the above (apart from 4) have advantages and disadvantages:
>>
>> 1. Advantage: a. I don't have to update any databases or otherwise  
>> keep things up-to-date.
>>  Advantage: b. There's pretty much every object you could wish for  
>> in the existing catalogues. Adding extra catalogues only improves  
>> things.
>>  Advantage: c. Incentive to register and get more catalogues.
>>
>>  Disadvantage: a. The searching can take a long time (although  
>> there are various things I can do to alleviate the problem).
>>  Disadvantage: b. False positives, false negatives can occur, if  
>> there are bogus catalogue entries (e.g. galaxies with Mag=0).  
>> Duplicates.
>>
>> 2. Advantage: a. Fast lookup.
>>  Advantage: b. Very little maintenance required by me.
>>  Advantage: c. Same as c above.
>>
>>  Disadvantage: a. If catalogues get changed or added, the database  
>> will need refreshing. This could be done on-line, possibly when in  
>> the Cat Manager.
>>  Disadvantage: b. See disadvantage b above.
>>  Disadvantage: c. The database could be quite big.
>>
>> 3. Advantage: a. High quality object choices.
>>  Advantage: b. Very fast lookups.
>>
>>  Disadvantage: a. LOTS of work required by me (I could start by  
>> sucking all user-contributed plan objects, I guess).
>>  Disadvantage: b. A limited selection of objects, unless  
>> Disadvantage (a) isn't a problem.
>>  Disadvantage: c. A less objective selection of objects. Some good/ 
>> popular ones might be missed.
>>
>> What are your views, O Valued Testers?
>>
>> Paul R.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> APBeta mailing list
>> APBeta at lists.astroplanner.net
>> http://lists.astroplanner.net/listinfo.cgi/apbeta-astroplanner.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> APBeta mailing list
> APBeta at lists.astroplanner.net
> http://lists.astroplanner.net/listinfo.cgi/apbeta-astroplanner.net