2.86
#...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
|
A lot of images are published, with some added scientific details in the Image Description. This is of course a nice habit, and i like getting some information about the objects presented, not only about equipment or capturing parameters. Especially in cases where object or event is of transient nature. In many situations, such scientific information was gathered from a small number of sources, sometimes it is even a copy&paste from a single website like Wikipedia. However, only on rare occasions the origin of such data is mentioned. I think, referencing the source would often add valuable information to a published image. About depth of research, where one might find further information, or to see if it is still up to date. Citing would be a good habit not only if a contiguous chunk of text was copy&pasted - this should always be mentioned - but also when substantial information was gathered from a certain source. In such cases i will add references in future, and maybe others will, too. Clear skies, Horst |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I've put a lot of thought into image descriptions. My strategy is to gather insights from different sources and distill them into a concise overview, ensuring I don't replicate someone else's work. I aim to make my gallery accessible to anyone interested, serving as the primary showcase for my creations. I'm considering including a few details about the photography process to enhance the descriptions, striving to make them as engaging as possible. The idea is to present the information in a way that's easy to read, informative, and captivating. *********** So here's the thing. The statement that I just wrote above was rewritten in Copilot AI. I use it extensively to better convey my thoughts as I do not possess quality writing skills. Simply put AI saves me lots of time and ensures the reader can understand my thoughts and keep me out of plagiarism I hope. |
4.36
#...
·
|
|---|
In such cases i will add references in future, and maybe others will, too. That's certainly something I'll consider. as I've mostly been slacking in this department unless there's something unusual. I think I've simply been thinking to myself that people aren't interested for two reasons, they already know about the objects and it's usually not a big deal to find information online. I think perhaps I grew a bit tired of it, especially from various FB groups that contains a copy pasted wall of text, which may be another reason that I usually don't include too long descriptions. But I agree that it can be good practice to include some information. Brian Schumacher: I completely understand why you would use AI, but personally I find the provided text to be a bit "too much". It's pretty easy to spot where AI has been used to create text based on certain verbs and ways of describing things that we normally wouldn't do. For me it comes off as a bit over the top. |
22.68
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Horst, I like your suggestion. It’s a little extra work but it’s a good idea. John |
7.84
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
|
In descriptions I'm mostly looking for some thoughts regarding acquisition and subjective remarks on processing and perhaps author's subjective impressions. I also value brevity and avoid reading "walls of text," I think most people do, even if they won't always admit it. I think finding more in-depth information about the well-known objects is easy, and unless one presents something super unique or newly discovered, most objects are quite familiar to the AB community. That said, I'd avoid using a term "best practices" - we're all individuals and we tend to put out individual spin on the images and the descriptions. For me 2-3 sentences "to the point" are better than long paragraphs - but I am well aware that some feel the opposite and that's great too. |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
Jan Erik Vallestad: You are right and that is why I posted as I did. Its far better written but it does sound for lack of better terms "machined" and too much. Thank you for your feedback. |
2.11
#...
·
|
|---|
Brian Schumacher: First problem that comes to mind with that is that generative language models will hallucinate information pretty frequently when asked to write about deep space objects. But it may be an interesting too to provide writing to and ask for reformatting based on certain parameters. Or to provide information to and ask for some rewriting of, with possibly some follow-up prompts for improvement, but in that case it would just be the AI rewriting instead of the human, and a source or sources could be cited. I also agree that generative model text can be “too much.” It likes to write a lot without ever going deeper into thought, and I find the language it produces sticks out like a sore thumb. But a model like ChatGPT *can* take instruction on toning down excessive language, presenting concepts directly and with more clarity, etc. OP made an interesting suggestion. I think I’ll try to incorporate it more often when I write about an object. I suspect the main reason why it doesn’t happen more often is just people being less familiar with writing things up with citations. |
3.61
#...
·
|
|---|
| It brings up an interesting point regarding source material for the description. If it is common knowledge to the astronomic community, is it required to cite the source? Is cut and paste of a description out of say SkySafari (that you pay for) a copyright infringement? |
16.52
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Great topic. Some personal observations. 1) "Best-practice" is "most useful" 2) I don't find a detailed astronomical description of the object useful. I can go and look it up on Wikipedia - just as easily as author may have just done. 3) Rather I prefer to learn about the act of creating the image i.e. what inspired the photographer, the trials and tribulations of observing the object, of the special challenges of processing the data. The stuff I can't look up on the web. This is the description I will learn most from as I continue my journey through this wonderful hobby. In many cases I have been inspired to image a DSO due to the work of a member of the AB community. Perhaps is it the (former) scientist in me, but that case I will use the image description to cite that person. I wish this were a more frequent practice on AB, as it would introduce me to many more interesting imagers on AB. 4) No doubt many will disagree with the above, and that is fine. This - I suspect - is very much a mater of personal taste. CS Brian |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
What feels appropriate to put in description varies with the audience. Here, I rarely add any description of the object (because, as mentioned earlier, most people are familiar or can easily look up wikipedia). For the local club's facebook site, though, many members really appreciate some background info on objects. If there's modern science involved, I try to go a bit beyond just wikipedia and sometimes pull up a couple of primary sources. When I do add info, I always mention where I got the information. As a former journal editor, I can't bring myself to not do that  |
4.26
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
My descriptions are too general to require attributions. I write for my non-astronomy friends on FB. But I’m happy to send links if asked. Otherwise, I try to tell a story and “saganize” the content to make it easier to digest...maybe even entertaining. As such, I never talk about my gear but emphasize the wonderment of the sky. |
