martin_piers_nicholson wrote:
>  >
>  > In the case of MISAO, it is a catalog of 1340 objects, something
> impossible
>  > to check on a one-by-one basis. (Note: it includes variables either
>  > discovered by Martin, or on some of his images.)
>
> I would not want colleagues to feel that I had any significant role in
> the vast amount of work done by the MISAO team. I think the total of
> my contribution is two variables found in one batch of images I
> supplied. The overwhelming majority of the new variables are down to
> Ken-ichi Kadota and Nobuo Ohkura.
>
> http://www.aerith.net/misao/offer/list.html
> <http://www.aerith.net/misao/offer/list.html>
>
> I will work through their list "as and when".
>
That will be a valued contribution to the community.
I hope that you will also consider performing some followup
observations of your own - it would be good to see your backyard
observatory contributing data again.

One of my real concerns are the papers either by various surveys
or by data miners of those surveys.  The refereeing process is supposed
to catch the majority of errors in papers, but when looking at a large
list of objects, this process can fail.

For example, I just reviewed a paper from a GRB group that had found
over a thousand variables in their images.  Looking at the data, I would
agree - these are variables.  However, they spent half of their paper
describing their automated method of deriving periods and classification,
and when examining the table based on these facts, it was very obvious
to me that the automated process was not working.  Would another reviewer
have caught this?  We've rejected a couple of lists for VSX because
inspection by the team made it clear that the false-positive rate was
too high; some of these were refereed publications.  Surveys represent
a real challenge to proper and timely refereeing.
Arne

I have looked at the first 10 entires in the MISAO database of "new
variable stars"

http://www.aerith.net/misao/data/misv.cgi?en0100

Using VSX seems to show that 8 are known GCVS variables
(#1,2,3,4,5,6,8 and 10)

#7 only has seven data points on three days does also link to NSVS
#9 only has six data points on three days but does also link to NSVS

I don't really see that the MISAO data adds much to the debate.
Should these just appear in VSX named as GCVS or NSVS variables
rather than MISAO variables?

As people probably know I do most of my observing using remote
facilities in New Mexico. It would be simple to write a script that
would take weekly V band images of say 50 NSVS variables (or indeed
50 MISAO variables) every week for a few months.

BUT - would this be a sensible use of observing time? Would these go
into VSX as Nicholson 1 to Nicholson 50 <grin>?

martin_piers_nicholson wrote:
>
>
> I have looked at the first 10 entires in the MISAO database of "new
> variable stars"
>
> http://www.aerith.net/misao/data/misv.cgi?en0100
> <http://www.aerith.net/misao/data/misv.cgi?en0100>
>
> Using VSX seems to show that 8 are known GCVS variables
> (#1,2,3,4,5,6,8 and 10)
>
If you look at the references, you will see that these are "known
GCVS variables" because they were discovered by MISAO and published
in IBVS.

> #7 only has seven data points on three days does also link to NSVS
> #9 only has six data points on three days but does also link to NSVS
>
> I don't really see that the MISAO data adds much to the debate.
> Should these just appear in VSX named as GCVS or NSVS variables
> rather than MISAO variables?
>
That is how they appear.  Right now, VSX lists all records from all
catalogs, so you will get multiple hits from stars that appear in
more than one catalog.  Eventually there will be a "primary record",
where the best information from each catalog is brought together.

> As people probably know I do most of my observing using remote
> facilities in New Mexico. It would be simple to write a script that
> would take weekly V band images of say 50 NSVS variables (or indeed
> 50 MISAO variables) every week for a few months.
>
> BUT - would this be a sensible use of observing time? Would these go
> into VSX as Nicholson 1 to Nicholson 50 <grin>?
>
They would be entered as VSX Jhhmmss.s+ddmmss
If you published them elsewhere, then there would be a cross-id to
Nicholson xx if that is how you listed them in the other paper, or
to NSVS xxxx if that is how they are indexed.  There is very little
personal glory in discovering or studying variable stars; as opposed
to "minor planet" (parentheses mine, based on the latest IAU meeting)
studies, where the discoverer can name the body, very few stars are
known by an individuals' name.

What is a sensible use of observing time depends on your personal
opinion, not anyone elses.  Likewise, whether you use the nice system
in your backyard, or RAS, is your choice.  I'm just pushing you to
restart your Daventry system too. :)
Arne

Yes I appreciate that the GCVS listing has its origins in the MISAO
data. What seemed strange to me was having two listings in VSX for
the same star when both entries have their origin in the same data.

What is of far more significance is how little data was used to
establish variability.

#3 - 4 observations over 3 days
#5 - 8 observations over 3 days
#6 - 5 observations over 2 days
#7 - 7 observations over 3 days
#8 - 5 observations over 2 days
#9 - 6 observations over 3 days
#10 - 5 observations over 2 days

If we, as I hope, issue guidelines as to what constitutes a new
variable I would hope that none of these would have qualified for
inclusion.

So what do we do about existing VSX entries that are backed up by so
little?

Yes I appreciate that the GCVS listing has its origins in the MISAO
data. What seemed strange to me was having two listings in VSX for
the same star when both entries have their origin in the same data.

What is of far more significance is how little data was used to
establish variability.

#3 - 4 observations over 3 days
#5 - 8 observations over 3 days
#6 - 5 observations over 2 days
#7 - 7 observations over 3 days
#8 - 5 observations over 2 days
#9 - 6 observations over 3 days
#10 - 5 observations over 2 days

If we, as I hope, issue guidelines as to what constitutes a new
variable I would hope that none of these would have qualified for
inclusion.

So what do we do about existing VSX entries that are backed up by so
little?

--- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, "martin_piers_nicholson"
<martin_piers_nicholson@...> wrote:
>
> I have looked at the first 10 entires in the MISAO database of "new
> variable stars"
>
> http://www.aerith.net/misao/data/misv.cgi?en0100
>
> Using VSX seems to show that 8 are known GCVS variables
> (#1,2,3,4,5,6,8 and 10)
>
> #7 only has seven data points on three days does also link to NSVS
> #9 only has six data points on three days but does also link to NSVS
>
> I don't really see that the MISAO data adds much to the debate.
> Should these just appear in VSX named as GCVS or NSVS variables
> rather than MISAO variables?

The simplest of investigations reveals MisV0001 is in the GCVS
primarily because it was published in an IBVS by MISAO and the GCVS
picked it up later and formally named it, as has happened with many a
MISAO variable

http://www.sai.msu.su/groups/cluster/gcvs/cgi-bin/search.cgi?search=V4652+Sgr

In this primary instance the Mira star was found from images of the
field of the adjacent suspected cataclysmic variable V4334 Sgr via
using PIXY SYSTEM (1) on donated images for that field.

The GCVS reference to the study of MisV0002 is again to an IBVS by
Yoshida et al on MISAO variables.

VSX also echoes this information.  Probably same for t'others, I can't
be bothered to look.

MISAO variables predate NSVS red variables in many instances, memory
tells me up to MisV0500 were published in IBVSs, although in what form
I remember not, and further that these are subsequently in SIMBAD, so
the NSVS team should have found them via cross checking.  In fact the
NSVS team did not even fully cross check against the GCVS and NSV as
at that time said catalogues were only up to date in the SAI ftp
archive and not integrated into SIMBAD, which had a woefully out of
date copy.  MisV often came afore subsequent published NSVS J, in
other words, and just as often the NSVS solution is no more accurate
and many of their long period variable periodicities are between
farcical and very bad indeed.

The date is likely around 2003 when which survey has priority probably
swaps, last I was actively taking note of MISAO stuff and doing cross
indexing work therefor up to around the MisV1200s, MisV1147 and the
potential Nova Cephei 2001 = V0709 Cephei which I think = MisV1181 was
about the last ones I remember.  There was no NSVS data to play with
at that time.  Amateurs using visual techniques provided a lot of the
full lightcurve for the semilegendary MisV1147, plus some allsky CCD
several passband photometry from folk like Ondrej Pejcha.  It was
quite a little international get together on the quiet was that one.


It is within the context of these matters that VSX can do work if folk
experienced in such work are willing to cross correlate multiple
entries for single objects, show the connection with reference to
evidence, literature based or new observation based, and tighten up
the reportage system of the database.  That is what it is about.  VSX
makes the MISAO and GCVS and NSVS data available for the tidying up of
the case of what the true situation is re the MISAO _discoveries_.

As is, the MISAO list was imported en masse and therefore duplicates
other entries, as many were published by MISAO, or noted to vsnet
lists as was, and subsequently were formally adopted into the GCVS,
which too lives in VSX.

I'll repeat that a third time.  MisVnnnn objects are often in GCVS
because they were discovered as new by MISAOchan, checked against then
current catalogues for newness by her alter ego Pixy Misa, and double
checked for knownness by Kato Taichi and independently for some by
John Greaves, although neither were formal "MISAO members".

The NSVS database permits folk to solve such objects if they so wish,
indeed Yoshida Seiichi himself typed and periodified several long
known red MISAO objects using the extra data thereby made available,
sometimes in tandem with new CCD observations by Japanese observers.

Solution is the emphasis.  The current situation reminds me that I
advised strongly against full MISAO list import into VSX as there are
_some_ gray area objects whilst the more certain objects are fully
published in IBVSs (sadly IBVS data still ain't in VSX for some
unfathomable reason) and/or already integrated into GCVS and later
namelists.  I took the view that misinterpretations re VSX submission
could ensue based on one or two, and only a handful mind you, of cases
carefully picked out of MISAO for agenda based illustration by those
desirous of so doing.

A list, no matter of what longevity, that contains some objects only
appearing in that list on a webpage being imported into VSX could
potentially be an unfortunate precedent, was another view I took.

However, Seiichi is a devoted and rigorous individual, and took every
effort to ensure his findings were new afore calling them as such.

Remember again that the vast majority of the MisV objects appeared
afore the current surveys and lists began to make their data public.

> As people probably know I do most of my observing using remote
> facilities in New Mexico. It would be simple to write a script that
> would take weekly V band images of say 50 NSVS variables (or indeed
> 50 MISAO variables) every week for a few months.
>
> BUT - would this be a sensible use of observing time? Would these go
> into VSX as Nicholson 1 to Nicholson 50 <grin>?

Why not Nicholson 1 to twenty million?  Yes, they'd likely go into VSX
as Nicholson 1 to 20,000,000 provided they were shown variable, shown
truly to be new and/or shown to be properly and fully analysed and
solved if their existance in other surveys, such as ASAS3 and NSVS,
was under a false analysis/variability typing, as perforce they would
be new solutions for either known or new objects.  However, in the
case of preknown but incorrectly classed objects a note should be made
of their preknownness.  If only for bibliographic reference... ...the
old paper trail, don'tja know.

The nature of the MISAO system is somewhat historical, it preceded the
current datamineable (more properly, datatrawlable) surveys and was
based on processing of donated CCD observations taken by amateurs.

It was set up to find new asteroids by happenstance in spare images,
something soon made irrelevant by LINEAR, and they hoped one day to
find a nova or two, and they more or less did find one in the end.

Whether such a scheme is strictly relevant in the modern age is
unclear.

A system likely more relevant to the current way of things is likely
Vello Tabur's survey of the southern sky with a simple system,
something he unfortunately never wrote up, coz it were impressive, and
it found truly new variables, and solved their nature, and not all of
those were found or included in subsequent ASAS3 releases either.

John

> ...(sadly IBVS data still ain't in VSX for some unfathomable reason)...

It's simply a matter of lack of time as part of a 100% volunteer
effort.  That's all.  They'll get in there.

-Christopher

ftp://skydot.lanl.gov/pub/projects/skydot/nsvs/red_variables/nsvs_unspecified_sl\
ow_vars.dat

When the NSVS published its list of red variables it had 693 slow
trend variables left over that were either not red or they couldn't
find any evidence in terms of colour.

This list is unpublished and to the best of my limited knowledge only
exists in the form above linked.  In other words it might as well not
exist.  Quoted periods are sometimes "inventive" and none of the
objects have a type given.  However, it has some uses.

Stuff from it crops up from time to time.  For a start, not all 693
are unknown, as in new.  Many are GCVS stars.  Some are NSV stars, and
are therefore confirmations of those.

One of Jim Bedient's recentest 4 Ross variables is in there for
instance, and the reason VSX didn't find it when Jim looked was
because VSX doesn't have this list.  It exists at that ftp site as a
file, in my Guide 8 setup, and maybes one or two other places, and
that's it.

From time to time, just coz it's dead easy to do on my system, I
double check folks confirmations, new stuff and/or revisions to see if
I can learn more about 'em, and on occasion find that I already have
it as known but no one else seems to have this info logged, well I
finally found out it is because I maintain a copy of this file merged
with the NSVS red variables, rather than having it separate.

Besides the aforementioned Ross variable and a Nicholson variable or
two and NSV confirmations there's other stuff.

For the new and unknown stuff, till this above list that is, which
itself is mostly unknown, most of them are long period red variables,
some are even evident Miras.  Basically the NSVS teams' automated
matching caused the NSVS objects to be linked to a nearby field star
in many cases, and this field star is not red.  As some of these are
high amplitude Miras adjacent to field stars the astrometry from this
low resolution survey is even biased towards said field star due to
the Mira being fainter than that most of the time, making it appear
nearer the more often brighter field star than the true star.  In some
cases the two objects are not be resolved by the ROTSE1 system.  A
characteristic long flat minimum "low amplitude" Mira lightcurve
occurs in these cases.  Often an IRAS and/or MSX6C source or even
Carbon Star position reveals the nearby red star, which again is often
faint in GSC and/or USNO as it was near minimum during the exposure of
the survey plates.  The file also contains evidence of variable Carbon
Stars, then (not all such stars are variable, don't listen to lies on
that).

So, the vast majority are new red variables and known variables.

Some are SRd stars, yellow ofttimes misnomered semiregular supergiants.

Some of the known ones are fixed, there's a GCVS "SR" in there that
has one of the most beautiful RVa lightcurves I've ever seen.

Some few are truly not red so there are things like a few secular Be
stars, and some minor outbursting Be stars.

There's at least one new cataclysmic variable, now noted somewhere.

There's one or two other candidate CVs.

There's some false alarms where either the instrumentation and/or
pipeline went apeshit for one region of the northernmost sky for some
reason.

There's one or two other fancy objects two, of uncertain ilk.

Also some known RR Lyrae stars... ...how, you ask?  Well, when
something samples a patch of sky once every few days about the same
time of night and images an object with a period that is 0.50something
days, the resultant lightcurve emulates a slow long period variable,
sometimes with a shape "echoing" the true short period profile!

Spooky that.

There's also a nova that was completely missed at the time.  Well, it
never got brighter than twelfth mag, and lay somewhat nearish
Polarish, so it would be, wouldn't it?


People datamining NSVS data will find these objects from time to time.
  As they are unpublished they are pretty much "new discoveries" if
someone solves and identifies them properly.  On the other hand, it is
a reservoir of mostly proven variability for folk to delve deeper in
if they wish, selecting lightcurve morphologies that are more
interesting and/or intriguing than the rest, and as such might be more
fruitful than randomly hoping to find new variable stars.

And so on and so forth, etcetera, etcetera.

John

>> BUT - would this be a sensible use of observing time? Would these go
>> into VSX as Nicholson 1 to Nicholson 50 <grin>?
>>
> They would be entered as VSX Jhhmmss.s+ddmmss
> If you published them elsewhere, then there would be a cross-id to
> Nicholson xx if that is how you listed them in the other paper, or
> to NSVS xxxx if that is how they are indexed.

Actually if the observations are for Misao (or any other known) variables
they will enter VSX as revisions of the already existing stars so if they
already have a designation I don't see why a new name should be added just
for personal glory satisfaction...
If every variable star researcher had that purpose in mind when it is
analysing a new or unsolved variable, the nomenclature would be chaotic.

Cheers,
Sebastian.

martin_piers_nicholson wrote:
>
>
> Yes I appreciate that the GCVS listing has its origins in the MISAO
> data. What seemed strange to me was having two listings in VSX for
> the same star when both entries have their origin in the same data.
>
This is because VSX is a heterogeneous database.  It includes both
original data, as from surveys like ASAS, as well as the GCVS (a general
catalog) which tries to catalog all of the original data.  There
will be duplicate records until such time as a volunteer links
them together.

> What is of far more significance is how little data was used to
> establish variability.
>
> #3 - 4 observations over 3 days
> #5 - 8 observations over 3 days
> #6 - 5 observations over 2 days
> #7 - 7 observations over 3 days
> #8 - 5 observations over 2 days
> #9 - 6 observations over 3 days
> #10 - 5 observations over 2 days
>
> If we, as I hope, issue guidelines as to what constitutes a new
> variable I would hope that none of these would have qualified for
> inclusion.
>
If you object to these stars, then you should submit a revision for
each one, specifying why they should be discarded and giving supporting
evidence for their non-variability.  I would start with #8, which
demonstrated a variation from 14.2 to 15.9, 1.7magnitudes, in that
two-day interval, and is known as V1255 Sco.

I seriously doubt that you can create guidelines that will handle all
cases, but I'm open to hearing what guidelines you propose.  By finding
non-variables in VSX and documenting the mistakes that caused them to
be included, you might create a reasonable short-list of things to
avoid.  Sounds like a good project for an expert dataminer like yourself.
Arne

arne wrote:
>  > What is of far more significance is how little data was used to
>  > establish variability.
>  >
>  > #3 - 4 observations over 3 days
>  > #5 - 8 observations over 3 days
>  > #6 - 5 observations over 2 days
>  > #7 - 7 observations over 3 days
>  > #8 - 5 observations over 2 days
>  > #9 - 6 observations over 3 days
>  > #10 - 5 observations over 2 days
>  >
>  > If we, as I hope, issue guidelines as to what constitutes a new
>  > variable I would hope that none of these would have qualified for
>  > inclusion.
>  >
> If you object to these stars, then you should submit a revision for
> each one, specifying why they should be discarded and giving supporting
> evidence for their non-variability. I would start with #8, which
> demonstrated a variation from 14.2 to 15.9, 1.7magnitudes, in that
> two-day interval, and is known as V1255 Sco.
>
Reading my comment, I see that it can be misleading.  The two days
reported for #8 are separated by 5 months, not consecutive days.
I also see that the two images show a variation that looks like
1.7mag, and reported as such, but the data table says 0.7mag.
Interesting.  I apologize for any misrepresentation that I might
have given.
Arne

Arne said

"If you object to these stars, then you should submit a revision for
each one, specifying why they should be discarded and giving
supporting
evidence for their non-variability.  I would start with #8, which
demonstrated a variation from 14.2 to 15.9, 1.7magnitudes, in that
two-day interval, and is known as V1255 Sco."

I am not objecting to these on the grounds of non-variability but on
the grounds of the quantity of data presented. I am concerned that a
handful of CCD images on a couple of nights can still qualify a star
for inclusion in GCVS - and hence into VSX.

I am certainly not reassured by the fact that they entered GCVS via
IBVS since #4746 doesn't give me any reason to think that more data
exists elsewhere, i.e. not on the MISAO website.

http://www.konkoly.hu/cgi-bin/IBVS?4746


If this quantity of data is OK - and I am more than happy to go
along with the majority view here - then are submissions to VSX from
other sources with the proverbial "handful of CCD images on a couple
of nights " going to be accepted? My strong suspicion is that the
answer will be a firm no for reasons that have been expressed by
several colleagues in several venues in the past.

Martin,

Astronomy is a rapidly changing field.  The practice of what was
accepted for publication in 1999 and what's appropriate now are vastly
different.

Seven years ago there was no ASAS, no NSVS, no 2MASS, no lots of
things we take for granted now.  CCDs in the hands of of amateurs were
many fewer and much farther between.  The standards were thus much
different.

IBVS at the time accepted submissions such as the one you link.  GCVS
at the time assigned designations to to such stars, in fact they were
tremdously loose, assigning variable deignations to stars with no more
documentation than a single posting to a vsnet list.

Things are quite different now, the standards are higher, and rightly
so.  It's relatively much easier now to come up with much more than
two or three observations.  Variable stars are not such a rare
phenomenon that one more is all that interesting.  I strongly believe
that it's of interest to find and investigate each and every one,
because only by quantifying, describing and classifying them can we
find the truly interesting, significant and unusual objects.  There's
also bound to be gold in the statistical study of mass quantities of
variables, probably in ways we haven't thought of yet.  Thus all
variables should be adequately documented, published and made
available for the next Leavitt that wants to coax magic from the sky.

The fact that a few years ago a few random observations of a star
qualified it for publication and inclusion in the GCVS has no real
bearing on what happens today.  What it leaves us with is a bunch of
stars that should be observed and quantified.

75 years ago, stars suspected of being variable by being observed on
two photographic plates spaced 20 years apart qualified them for
publication in the Astronomical Journal.    Thus Ross' stars
eventually got into the GCVS as suspected variables, at those that
hadn't been subsequently studied by others.  AJ's standards for
publication have changed since  then, and so in more recent times has
everyone else's.

But we are still left with all these orphan suspects, like the MisV
stars you point out, Martin.  Rather than campaigning to get them
removed, or complaining that the standards are now too high, though, I
think the best thing to do is observe them (we are observers, after
all, right?), quantify them, and classify them.  Mira, EB,
non-variable, let's just answer the questions out there.

Isn't that what Science is, answering questions?

Jim Bedient

On 9/1/06, martin_piers_nicholson <martin_piers_nicholson@...> wrote:
> Arne said
>
> "If you object to these stars, then you should submit a revision for
> each one, specifying why they should be discarded and giving
> supporting
> evidence for their non-variability.  I would start with #8, which
> demonstrated a variation from 14.2 to 15.9, 1.7magnitudes, in that
> two-day interval, and is known as V1255 Sco."
>
> I am not objecting to these on the grounds of non-variability but on
> the grounds of the quantity of data presented. I am concerned that a
> handful of CCD images on a couple of nights can still qualify a star
> for inclusion in GCVS - and hence into VSX.
>
> I am certainly not reassured by the fact that they entered GCVS via
> IBVS since #4746 doesn't give me any reason to think that more data
> exists elsewhere, i.e. not on the MISAO website.
>
> http://www.konkoly.hu/cgi-bin/IBVS?4746
>
>
> If this quantity of data is OK - and I am more than happy to go
> along with the majority view here - then are submissions to VSX from
> other sources with the proverbial "handful of CCD images on a couple
> of nights " going to be accepted? My strong suspicion is that the
> answer will be a firm no for reasons that have been expressed by
> several colleagues in several venues in the past.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
---------------------------------------------
Jim Bedient
jbedient@...
www.bedient.us

--- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, "James Bedient" <jbedient@...> wrote:
>
> Astronomy is a rapidly changing field.  The practice of what was
> accepted for publication in 1999 and what's appropriate now are
> vastly different.
>

I thought I'd said that, however you've put it far more eloquently
than meself, so fair enough.


Now, I will be on record, for those that bother to keep emails, for
making three predictions, made I think over six months ago.

i) I said MISAO shouldn't be imported en masse in VSX because of it's
nature and mix, published and defined stuff existed within it, but
some objects were barely pair of datapoints or so, often from
heterogenous sources, and folk would latch onto this point

ii) That the first person to latch onto this point would be Martin
Nicholson

iii) that he'd use the precedent that MISAO presented to up
minimalistic data as new variables, justified via MISAO's inclusion as
a complete list

Strangely it seems I was totally wrong on the third prediction, and
given the context of the current thread on this, I can't even adopt
hypercynical mode and suggest this is a backdoor way of trying to
justify minimal data submissals, ie by generating sufficient consensus
for misao being kept such that a sudden turn around can occur wherein
"so, I should be able to include this then?" crops up as a question
one day.  This outcome seems unlikely based on the contents of the
current thread.

Incidentally, I tend to use people and situations as examples to
illustrate points, not as anything direct or snide.


Anyway, MISAO list as a whole shouldn't've gone into VSX, it was a
contravention to some of the unstated general outline principles of
VSX that all said they hoped for.

There is some strong validity to the "that was then, this is now"
argument, but MISAO list as a whole doesn't quite fit into that
either, whereas it's a decent enough reason for NSV inclusion.

Many a MISAO variable would get in, via GCVS and/or IBVS and one or
two other places, just like any other variable.

I have some involvement here, I'd suggested preliminary types for many
a MISAO variable, some still used, and once upon a time I was asked
(amongst several other individuals) whether particular datasets ought
to be included in VSX or not, and if not, why not, and if so, whyso,
and this was amongst them, and I said not, and why not.

BUT it _is_ easy to remove them and/or revise them, there is a
methodology for this, you simply go out and observe them with either a
roboscope or your own kit and show their true nature or their
constancy, collate the data, write up the report, and submit it to VSX.

It's in now, it'll stay in, going on about it won't do anything, doing
work on it can and likely will.

Interestingly I used the same arguments against global MISAO import
that I did against global FASTT import, and the latter didn't get in
to my knowledge.

VSX will inevitably inherit several decades worth, including examples
still occuring in the modern survey era, of bad practice.  It can't
help but, the only way it can avoid it is to import next to nothing...
...even the GCVS has major errors in it, especially regarding
variability type, and a not quite insignificant number.  Actually
namelists 76 and 77 were the main guilty parties there.  Mindst the
special Hipparcos one (was that 74?) isn't entirely blameless
either... ...major task would be for someone to get rid of all the BY
Draconids in GCVS variables from Hipparcos, lots of 'em, I'd guess
most were constant, but even if variable, they ain't BY.


On a side note, I note nowadays there is none of this "them and us"
talk re VSX and GCVS, and one superceding t'other, etc, which is nice.

I bitch and nag and gripe on an SRb level (ie erratically semiregular)
about the fact that the IBVS data has not been put into VSX yet,
although it had been provided in importable form all this year.

I know it is a 100% voluntary organisation, and Chris is beleagured.

Remember deeply, however, that GCVS lost all sympathy with virtually
everyone because of continued bleating about lack of resources.  The
response sometimes descended to "well, pack it in then, and let
someone else do it".  Kettles must take care on what they say about
their colleagues, the pots.

Still VSX is in early days, it is still an impressive engine, yet
datawise is still mostly a bunging together of a lot of catalogues,
which in itself is quite useful, granted.

However, sticking that IBVS data in takes it into the next stage, the
originally hoped for stage (not by me, I never expected it to happen,
there simply aren't enough hominids available to do the revision
work:- that's inherently available, as opposed to willingly available,
which is an even smaller subset).

IBVS data isn't even decently accessible via SIMBAD, it floats in the
aether somewhat at the moment, and only accumulated into a whole on
one or two people's hard disks.  Inclusion of that takes VSX from just
being a catalogue of catalogues with lookup features to stepping
towards the ideal of being a bibliographic and research resource.

What's the other thing I always wittering on and on about...
...oh yeah, VSX needs to get it's stuff on simbad, else it's all a
waste of time.


But never forget VSX will often have constant stars included in it due
to the evolving nature of study and the needs of aavso.  Currently it
includes all the supposed delta Scutids in NGC 6811 from a
professional paper that gives no real evidence whatsoever of
variability, photometric variability.  Lightcurves for five of these
made available last night revealed only one of the five is likely
variable, and is likely a delta Scutid.  Yet they are all upped into
VSX already, all nine or so total, because it is convenient for the
workings of AAVSO.  Something else I predicted.  I'm not saying this
is wrong, I'm not saying this is right, probably what I'm saying is if
folk want to make VSX appear as some Holy Grail then they are stuffed,
coz it's always going to end up compromised somewhere, somehow,
somewhen, due to past and current baggage, and aavso will always get
special privileges when it comes to bending/breaking the informal
"rules".  It's kind of inevitable.  Nine plus unconfirmed suspect
variables of the ilk of the worst excesses of the NSV in terms of
(lack of) evidence have been given VSX designations, four are very
likely constant, one is variable, four are unknown as to what they
are.  This is what happens in reality, it is not an ideal world scenario.



A technical issue wrt to SIMBAD, SIMBAD4 will fully replace SIMBAD3 by
the end of the month (even if the latter has a backup archive site,
they state the _database_ will _freeze_ for 3 when 4 is launched, ie
be no longer updated), and the HTTP GET access will fully change,
however the good news is that I am informed the new system will be
fully documented.  Apparently HTTP GET for 3 was never officially
adopted, although it kind of exists and some of us make use of it.

Weird.


re Namelist 78, to paraphrase Arnold Brown :- "And why?"  Nonlist
might be a more fitting epithet.  Anyone noticed that it contains
seried ranks of 17th to 19th magnitude "variables" in several Galactic
open clusters listed with amplitudes of <0.1 mag?  Here's an easy task
for revising VSX, delete all those, they're crap.

John

Arne wrote

"I seriously doubt that you can create guidelines that will handle all
cases, but I'm open to hearing what guidelines you propose.  By finding
non-variables in VSX and documenting the mistakes that caused them to
be included, you might create a reasonable short-list of things to
avoid.  Sounds like a good project for an expert dataminer like
yourself.
Arne"


Surely the referees that decide if an article is suitable for
publication ALREADY have guidelines on what constitutes the minimum
quality and quantity of data to back any claim.

Could these guidelines be shared with the rest of us?

martin_piers_nicholson wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Arne wrote
>
> "I seriously doubt that you can create guidelines that will handle all
> cases, but I'm open to hearing what guidelines you propose. By finding
> non-variables in VSX and documenting the mistakes that caused them to
> be included, you might create a reasonable short-list of things to
> avoid. Sounds like a good project for an expert dataminer like
> yourself.
> Arne"
>
> Surely the referees that decide if an article is suitable for
> publication ALREADY have guidelines on what constitutes the minimum
> quality and quantity of data to back any claim.
>
> Could these guidelines be shared with the rest of us?

May I remind you of your earlier email:

  > I already know what some people think but what I would like to see
  > is a consensus across the whole sector. This implies that the many
  > people who have remained silent in the past are at least given a
  > chance express their thoughts.

Since you remain silent, I think you should express your thoughts.
Arne

martin_piers_nicholson wrote:
>
>
> Arne said
>
> "If you object to these stars, then you should submit a revision for
> each one, specifying why they should be discarded and giving
> supporting
> evidence for their non-variability. I would start with #8, which
> demonstrated a variation from 14.2 to 15.9, 1.7magnitudes, in that
> two-day interval, and is known as V1255 Sco."
>
> I am not objecting to these on the grounds of non-variability but on
> the grounds of the quantity of data presented. I am concerned that a
> handful of CCD images on a couple of nights can still qualify a star
> for inclusion in GCVS - and hence into VSX.
>
> I am certainly not reassured by the fact that they entered GCVS via
> IBVS since #4746 doesn't give me any reason to think that more data
> exists elsewhere, i.e. not on the MISAO website.
>
> http://www.konkoly.hu/cgi-bin/IBVS?4746
> <http://www.konkoly.hu/cgi-bin/IBVS?4746>
>
> If this quantity of data is OK - and I am more than happy to go
> along with the majority view here - then are submissions to VSX from
> other sources with the proverbial "handful of CCD images on a couple
> of nights " going to be accepted? My strong suspicion is that the
> answer will be a firm no for reasons that have been expressed by
> several colleagues in several venues in the past.
>
When VSX was first populated, there were very few lists/catalogs
included.  As each new datset was identified, it was presented to
the managers, discussion occurred, and a consensus reached as to
whether it should be included.

MISAO was discussed in January.  John had expressed his reservations
about it considerably earlier; my view was that it contained far more
wheat than chaff.

There are 4 ways of handling large lists:
(1) accept as-is
(2) reject as-is
(3) cherry-pick and only include those stars deemed variable
(4) accept, then reject later those stars deemed constant

Both (3) and (4) take large amounts of volunteer time.  (3) means a
given list may take time before it appears in VSX; (4) means a list
appears immediately, but the quality is compromised for some time
until someone cleans it up.  MISAO falls into category (4); some
enterprising person needs to make comments/remarks about its stars.

No matter what list gets included, there will always be some discrepant
objects: John Greaves latest OEJV postings had a few stars already known
or with discrepant coordinates; Nicholson's postings had stars already known;
GCVS still has about 200 stars that they cannot even identify, much
less know whether they are variable.

VSX has been pretty good about not including lists with large numbers
of poor stars, so the "chaff" ratio is good. I'd much rather quit
hearing about complaints as to data quality, and have such persons
contribute to the project by identifying such stars and entering
remarks through the available mechanism.
Arne

>
> Since you remain silent, I think you should express your thoughts.
> Arne
>

OK - my initial thoughts.

Amplitude. The amplitude of any reported variation needs to be
larger than the noise level (2 or 3 times?) So different magnitudes
would have different thresholds related to the 1/SNR figure.

Period. Some evidence that data has been processed in Peranso (or
similar) - screen dump of resulting graph?

Classification. At least a suggestion with a justification.

Links. Clickable links to ASAS and/or NSVS lightcurves

Labelled finder chart.

Identity of star in other catalogues including spectral class and
2MASS j-k value.

Minimum number of data points?
Minimum time spread between first and last readings? Perhaps related
to type?

Arne wrote

"There are 4 ways of handling large lists:
(1) accept as-is
(2) reject as-is
(3) cherry-pick and only include those stars deemed variable
(4) accept, then reject later those stars deemed constant"

The issue with MISAO is the objects were there is far too little
data to make a decision. Long term observations will resolve the
issue but only if people feel inclined to do them. In the meantime
months, years, decades will go by with these "variables" in limbo.


Arne also wrote

"I'd much rather quit hearing about complaints as to data quality,
and have such persons contribute to the project by identifying such
stars and entering remarks through the available mechanism."

If you want volunteers to invest their time - LOTS of it - I don't
think it is unreasonable for you to invest your time - a LITTLE of
it - in listerning to and responding to their comments.

martin_piers_nicholson wrote:
> Arne wrote
>
> "There are 4 ways of handling large lists:
> (1) accept as-is
> (2) reject as-is
> (3) cherry-pick and only include those stars deemed variable
> (4) accept, then reject later those stars deemed constant"
>
> The issue with MISAO is the objects were there is far too little
> data to make a decision. Long term observations will resolve the
> issue but only if people feel inclined to do them. In the meantime
> months, years, decades will go by with these "variables" in limbo.
>
So, give me a list of those that you think are suspect, and
we can start observing them.  Unless I have such a list, I
cannot tell how large the problem might be.  If it is 5 stars,
that is a different problem than if it is 500 stars.
Arne

Hi folks,

While doing asteroid photometry, I got a night-long light curve on GSC 4968-751.
It shows an EW with partial eclipses.  It is already listed as NSVS 13301000 and
as ASAS 135151-0212.5 in VSX but the type of variable was not certain between
the two catalog listings.  I submitted my light curve as a supporting document
to NSVS 13301000 since it supports the EW classification.  Unfortunately, my
nimble fingers submitted a typo.  VSX now has my comment that this EW has
"partical" eclipses instead of partial eclipses.  What's the best way for me to
submit the correction of this typo to VSX?  I don't see an option to do this in
the VSX web document so is an email to one of the tireless VSX volunteers like
Christopher, Patrick, or Sebastian the proper thing to do?

To those same folks, thanks for your tremendous work.  It's pretty amazing that
there is such a great user-friendly mechanism now for helping clean up existing
catalogs with, of all the crazy things, additional data.  :-)

Clearest skies,
Walt

--- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, arne <arne@...> wrote:
>

> >
> So, give me a list of those that you think are suspect, and
> we can start observing them.  Unless I have such a list, I
> cannot tell how large the problem might be.  If it is 5 stars,
> that is a different problem than if it is 500 stars.
> Arne
>

In crowded fields I am uncertain how useful NSVS and ASAS data would
be but regardless of that ...

I have looked at the first 50 on the MISAO site - I have serious
concerns about 20 of them and some concerns about a further 4.

This rather suggests that the problem overall will be in the
hundreds of stars rather than dozens.

#6
8
10
16
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
27
29
32
34
35
37
44
46
48


Some concerns

#4
11
17
33

martin_piers_nicholson wrote:
> --- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, arne <arne@...> wrote:
>
>
>>So, give me a list of those that you think are suspect, and
>>we can start observing them.  Unless I have such a list, I
>>cannot tell how large the problem might be.  If it is 5 stars,
>>that is a different problem than if it is 500 stars.
>>Arne
>>
>
>
> In crowded fields I am uncertain how useful NSVS and ASAS data would
> be but regardless of that ...
>
> I have looked at the first 50 on the MISAO site - I have serious
> concerns about 20 of them and some concerns about a further 4.
>
> This rather suggests that the problem overall will be in the
> hundreds of stars rather than dozens.
>
> #6 == V1258 Sco
> 8  == V1255 Sco
> 10 == V1249 Sco
> 16 == V1264 Sco
etc.
Perhaps I should be more explicit: we cannot make any judgement
regarding stars already included in the GCVS.  You need to make
a list of stars not found in other catalogs.  Sorry!
Arne

arne wrote:
> martin_piers_nicholson wrote:
>>#6 == V1258 Sco
>>8  == V1255 Sco
>>10 == V1249 Sco
>>16 == V1264 Sco
>
> etc.
> Perhaps I should be more explicit: we cannot make any judgement
> regarding stars already included in the GCVS.  You need to make
> a list of stars not found in other catalogs.  Sorry!
> Arne
>
I'll reply to myself. We are discussing whether MISAO should be
included in VSX.  If MISAO variables are GCVS variables, then
the GCVS team has deemed the supporting evidence "good enough"
to assign them names.  It is a bit of catch-22.  We cannot reject
these MISAO stars without also rejecting their GCVS counterparts, and
our agreement was that we leave the GCVS alone.

I'm willing to work on those stars *not* in the GCVS, but that
Martin or others suggest the supporting evidence is weak.  We can
reject those easily.  For the MISAO/GCVS stars, what we would have
to do is complain to Samus, and I think that is a second step,
not a first step.
Arne

I don't know if I am flip-flopping on this or not but let me say this:

A submitter who is submitting a new variable star to VSX should make
a "best-efforts" to make the submission as complete and convincing as
possible. As Arne has said, if we get a bunch of "suspected"
variables that may or may not be variable, it will not be helpful. So
submissions should be undeniably, proven variables. The problem with
a handful of CCD images is that one or two data points may not be
convincing. I don't want a zeropoint problem or a mis-ID to lead us
all on a wild goose chase. Wait for more points from the surveys or
go get some data yourself if there is the slightest bit of doubt.

BUT if a star is proven variable, even though there is not enough
information available to classify it, it can be submitted and
approved. I say "can be" because we are not in a rush. Why not study
the star for a while rather than rush to submit some half-ass data.
But, if it is variable, it is better to know about it incompletely
than not know about it at all.

Michael
http://www.lolife.com/astronomy/


On Sep 2, 2006, at 1:03 AM, martin_piers_nicholson wrote:

> If this quantity of data is OK - and I am more than happy to go
> along with the majority view here - then are submissions to VSX from
> other sources with the proverbial "handful of CCD images on a couple
> of nights " going to be accepted? My strong suspicion is that the
> answer will be a firm no for reasons that have been expressed by
> several colleagues in several venues in the past.

On 9/2/06, martin_piers_nicholson <martin_piers_nicholson@...> wrote:

> The issue with MISAO is the objects were there is far too little
> data to make a decision. Long term observations will resolve the
> issue but only if people feel inclined to do them. In the meantime
> months, years, decades will go by with these "variables" in limbo.

And this is no different from many hundreds of variables out there.
Ross' lists have laid fallow for near 80 years.

It's not an emergency.  As those who have the time and inclination
plug away at it do, stars will be classified.  We will *never* get to
the end.  Even these surveys that are supposed to put us all out of
businsess come on line, as John Greaves points out, the track record
of variable typing by professional surveys is awful.  Computers simply
allow people to make mistakes faster and easier than ever before.

What it all means, as far as I am concerned, is that if anyone is
looking for glory, discovering "new" variable stars is not going to do
it.  If you love science, love variable stars, and have patience,
there is a lifetime of valuable work to be done in the heavens.

I'm perfectly happy to let the directors be the directors, and hang
out down here at the end of the cello section, chipping in a bit of
work when I can help.

Jim

---------------------------------------------
Jim Bedient
jbedient@...
www.bedient.us

As a way to greatly speed the process.

Ask the experts to generate a list of the MISAO variables not
currently linked to a GCVS entry.

Better still do this concentrating on those south of -30.

You will find most, if not all, of these are very questionable.


MISAO 50-100 but not in GCVS

Very questionable
52
56
59
64
77
78
79
80
83
89
97
98

Questionable
58
68
90
94
96

Hi Walt,

Your typo has been corrected.  Until we get an interface built in to
VSX that allows for login-supported corrections to user-submitted
data, just send me a private e-mail letting me know what small
correction needs to be made, and I'll do it as soon as I can.  No
problem at all.

Have a great one,
Christopher

On 9/2/06, Walt Cooney <waltc@...> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> While doing asteroid photometry, I got a night-long light curve on GSC
4968-751.
> It shows an EW with partial eclipses.  It is already listed as NSVS 13301000
and
> as ASAS 135151-0212.5 in VSX but the type of variable was not certain between
> the two catalog listings.  I submitted my light curve as a supporting document
> to NSVS 13301000 since it supports the EW classification.  Unfortunately, my
> nimble fingers submitted a typo.  VSX now has my comment that this EW has
> "partical" eclipses instead of partial eclipses.  What's the best way for me
to
> submit the correction of this typo to VSX?  I don't see an option to do this
in
> the VSX web document so is an email to one of the tireless VSX volunteers like
> Christopher, Patrick, or Sebastian the proper thing to do?
>
> To those same folks, thanks for your tremendous work.  It's pretty amazing
that
> there is such a great user-friendly mechanism now for helping clean up
existing
> catalogs with, of all the crazy things, additional data.  :-)
>
> Clearest skies,
> Walt
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>