[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
re: (meteorobs) Observing Standards
Georges point about standard observing/recording methods is well taken. The
way I deal with such issues such as this, and the non-IMO showers, etc, is
to make the report in standard form per the guidlines. Any additional
information gathered is reported as supplementry notes, such as reporting a
sporadic as a possible ALPO shower. I believe that this should be
acceptable. For that reason, I will always use the polygon method as long
as the IMO datbase requests submission in that way, and any other
observations made will still be available to others who may find it useful
in the notes. Database compilation is very difficult, and use of standard
methodology is necessary for the results to be comparable. I hope that
this is acceptable to all involved. Discussions of ways to supplement the
value of observations is useful, but for the purpose of comparing apples to
apples, the same page of the recipe book must be open.
my .02,
Wayne
-------------
Original Text
From GeoZay@aoldot com, on 8/22/96 11:55 AM:
To: <meteorobs@latradedot com>
It seems like several people insists on recording meteor data in any manner
they personally want. With this attitude, there is no need in having NAMN
nor IMO as a standard. The purpose of these groups was to standardize the
method. Without this standardization everyone's data becomes questionable
and
not easily comparable...in other words a lot of babel that is only
understood
by the individual observer or time consuming to interpret. I'm trying to
teach the standard, but the dozen or so so-called individual "experts" here
have a tendency to custom make their own "standard". If my advice is not
valued and you insist on doing it differently despite it all, then I'm
wasting my time. Some methods may seem elementary for the more experienced
observer, but at least everyone is doing it the same way..dot it may be in
"baby" language, but everyone understands it... than a "language" invented
by
every individual no matter how convoluted and cerebral. Listening to some
folks here about the different ways they are going to determine their LM's
and How they are going to observe despite the accepted standards is very
individualistic and destructive. If you desire to not send your data to me
for my critiquing nor accept my advice for improvement, then do what you
wish. This is my function in NAMN. You voluntarily joined and I gave it my
all to help. If you want out...get out. This will free me up considerably
to
help those who really desire to learn and be part of the big picture
...rather than a countless fast moving sporadic.
George Zay