- This topic has 6 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi all,
I guess this is mainly for Andy. I took imaging runs on the same eclipsing binary last night from my observatory here, and in parallel, from my setup in Spain. However I can’t upload both because I get a duplicate error even though the header have different location and scope values.
I can imagine doing more of this as we like to double check certain eclipse timings.
Is this as it should be?
Cheers
Ian.Hi Ian,
Yes, I manage the BAA Photometry Database. You can contact me here and also at my email address.
When I created the online database I did not foresee a single observer submitting observations of the same star in the same filter made at the same time from different locations or telescopes. The previous offline database had a problem with duplicated and even multiple sets of the same observations, so it seemed a good idea to prevent duplicates being added. I have heard of this doing the job correctly in the past but this is the first time for this scenario where it creates a problem.
I will need to give this a little bit of thought and remind myself of the precise details of the database and the code that performs the checks. The location and telescope were not historically populated for all data. They were designed as descriptive fields and are not built into the checks to prevent duplicates. It may be possible to make a tweak, so one or both of these are included in future checks but I need to spend a little time checking into this before implementing any changes.
There is a simple fix, which is to provide you with two observer codes and logins. The observer logins are tied to a single observer code, and the observer code is one of the key fields used by the duplicate check. This would not be as neat a solution, as it would split your observations into two observers. So it is probably worth giving this a few days as I may be able to easily make a change to the duplicate check.
Best wishes,
AndySo it is probably worth giving this a few days as I may be able to easily make a change to the duplicate check.
Many thanks Andy.
Ian…
There is a simple fix, which is to provide you with two observer codes and logins.
…
This would not be as neat a solution, as it would split your observations into two observers.This approach has worked well for me in a different context.
In the past I have been engaged in significant collaborative projects where credit was due to two or more people. Hence, for example, THL which is short for Team-Hills-Leyland. Kevin Hills took all the images and performed the astrometry. I did the photometry and uploaded the results.
AAVSO does not understand the value of team-work 😉 so all the joint results were uploaded to their database under my name — with the prior agreement of my cow-orkers of course. So, Ian, when your results wend their way over he Atlantic I am pretty sure that all will be attributed to you.
Hi Ian,
I have implemented a change to the BAA Photometry Database that should resolve this problem.
The upload now checks the Julian date, object, observer id, filter (visual observations are automatically recorded as no filter), location and instrument.
This does mean it is just a little easier to upload duplicate observations, especially as the instrument and location are free format fields. However, it should be rare that someone comes back to upload observations at a later date but with very slightly different entries for these fields.
I should add that while I have tested this for a variety of scenarios, I can’t check all possible scenarios. Hopefully it won’t cause problems for other observers. There is a chance it has slowed down the upload processing, but hopefully any impact will not be noticeable.
One final thought. For an observation to be flagged as a duplicate, the Julian dates must be coincident in time to better than a tenth of a second. That is certainly possible, but I thought I’d mention it as my expectation would be for a few seconds or tenths of seconds between the timing of images with different setups, with just a few occasions where they agree to better than a tenth of a second.
Best wishes,
AndyI have implemented a change to the BAA Photometry Database that should resolve this problem.
Wow! You Sir, are a star! (a variable one?)
I just tested it on the two sets of obs. I made the other night from the UK and Spain. I’ve attached the light-curves together in the database. Amazing, you can’t tell the difference!
Brilliant!
Cheers
Ian.Attachments:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.