Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Revisions and references in VSX

Expand Messages
  • Sebastian Otero
    Revisions and references in VSX. Maybe someone can give some advice here. I am getting more and more lost every day regarding descriptions, supporting
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 4, 2006
      Revisions and references in VSX.
       
      Maybe someone can give some advice here.
      I am getting more and more lost every day regarding descriptions, supporting commentaries, and the like.
      I don't find them useful or easy to understand.
       
      When I revise an object I basically need to add the new data and a reference. There is no need of a supporting commentary (unless the submisson is on a star that is not published and it will be originally published in VSX, but this is something that won't be common). The reference works for that.
      I think there has to be an "add a reference" botton here that makes the reference appear in the reference section of the detail sheet.
      Having the supporting commentary as mandatory is a problem since I will never use it and I have to add something there and I don't know what...
       
      The reference section's got me even more lost...
      Sometimes I have no title to give for a reference, like in the case of V355 And when the star is published in a BBSAG Bulletin. That is not an article or paper.
      And I don't know what the field "description" stands for...
      I am writing the reference there. E.g. Tikannen, K.A., 2002, BBSAG Bulletin 127, 12
       
      I think that two fields would be enough : one for the title (but not mandatory) and one for the reference.
      No need to describe a reference... Just write it down.
       
      And of course, if we need to go to the reference section it is because we have revised or added an object, so the reference section should be accessed only from the revision or add a new star forms. No use having it independently accesible.
       
      Having to add things in the revision form and then in the detail sheet is also confusing. And it is even more confusing that some things I am adding need to be revised and other things (the comments, for instance) don't.
       
      I think we need to make it more friendly. It still doesn't follow the natural way of adding new information, at least according to my taste. There are more simple and standard things to add, authors, references, comments than to be asked for descriptions or commentaries that are vague ideas that can be rather confusing.
       
      Up to now, I have made 3 revisions and I always get lost somewhere along the process.
       
      And this is not criticism, I think we have an impressive tool here and we could make it easier to use.
      Let's discuss how to do it with examples to make it clearer.
       
      Some opinions?
       
      Cheers,
      Sebastian.
       
       
       
       
    • skygxproject
      Thank you very much for starting this important discussion, Sebastian. There is definitely a lot of work to do here to make these forms even more intuitive
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 5, 2006
        Thank you very much for starting this important discussion,
        Sebastian. There is definitely a lot of work to do here to make
        these forms even more intuitive and usable. I'd like to come to a
        consensus as soon as possible, so the confusion doesn't continue.

        What I'd like to do (in an attempt to streamline the debate) is have
        some of the people in this group post a message that lists exactly
        what they believe should be on each form, from the top to the
        bottom...1, 2, 3, etc.

        For the "Submit Revision" form, which fields should be there,
        starting at the top, and going down to the Submit button.

        Same thing for the New Star form. What fields should be there, top
        to bottom.

        No need to discuss the New Star Wizard, in particular, because
        whatever is decide upon for the New Star form (the single page
        version), that will translate verbatim to the Wizard.

        Arising from the task of making these lists will come other
        discussion. But right now, what will help me most is some concise
        lists of fields for each of these forms.

        Thanks,
        Christopher
      • Sebastian Otero
        ... These are my proposed fields: I would leave the data fields just as they are now. The last field would be replaced by the following: I would not include
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 5, 2006
          > What I'd like to do (in an attempt to streamline the debate) is have
          > some of the people in this group post a message that lists exactly
          > what they believe should be on each form, from the top to the
          > bottom...1, 2, 3, etc.
          >
          > For the "Submit Revision" form, which fields should be there,
          > starting at the top, and going down to the Submit button.

          These are my proposed fields:

          I would leave the data fields just as they are now.
          The last field would be replaced by the following:

          I would not include "Discoverer" and "Label" here.

          I would include:
          1) Reference. taking the "Add a reference" section here, I wouldn't give 3
          separate boxes for Title, URL and description. The reference would be just
          that: a reference, e.g.: Pojmanski, G., 2002, Acta Astronomica, 52, 397,
          The All Sky Automated Survey (2002AcA....52..397P). Then, the URL box is
          okay in case there is an online article. The reference would go directly to
          the detail sheet. No possibility to add a reference from the detail sheet
          since a new reference would only be justified if a revision or new star is
          added and thus the Revision and New Star forms would have the "Add a
          reference" option.

          2) A Remarks or Comments section to add new facts on the stars, such as
          secondary variablility type elements, binary nature, etc. (The remarks
          section in the detail sheet mgiht be labelled "Original catalogue remarks"
          or something like that so people don't get confused)

          3) Discoverer box only for unpublished stuff. If not, the reference
          information would be enough. When we are submitting a new and unpublished
          revision, there will be no reference so the reference field shouldn't be
          mandatory.

          4) Supporting commentary field wouldn't be mandatory either since only for
          unpublished work (our own results or data-mining) we would be required to
          provide that.

          So, in short:

          SUBMIT REVISION FORM:

          ***All data fields as they are
          ***1) Add a reference section a) reference [not mandatory] b) URL
          ***2) Remarks or comments with new data or facts.
          ***3) Discoverer [not mandatory, but you should give either a reference or a
          discoverer or both, you can't leave both spaces blank]
          ***4) Supporting commentary [for unpublished stuff]

          > Same thing for the New Star form. What fields should be there, top
          > to bottom.

          Chris, regarding the New Star Form, I think what you've done is okay.
          I would only change the "Reference title" to "Reference" or "Reference
          information" and include all the reference info in one box.

          Cheers,
          Sebastian.
        • Patrick Wils
          ... I think both the New Star and Submit Revision forms should contain exactly the same fields, except that for the latter some of the details are already
          Message 4 of 4 , Jul 6, 2006
            > What I'd like to do (in an attempt to streamline the debate) is have
            > some of the people in this group post a message that lists exactly
            > what they believe should be on each form, from the top to the
            > bottom...1, 2, 3, etc.
            >
            > For the "Submit Revision" form, which fields should be there,
            > starting at the top, and going down to the Submit button.
            >
            > Same thing for the New Star form. What fields should be there, top
            > to bottom.

            I think both the "New Star" and "Submit Revision" forms should contain
            exactly the same fields, except that for the latter some of the details
            are already filled in.
            Basically, I think the "New Star" form is OK, except that, as Sebastian
            suggested, references need 2 fields (label + URL; this would be the same
            then as the "Add Reference" form without the "Description").
            A general "Supporting Commentary" may be helpful to indicate how the
            results were obtained for information to the moderators (without the need
            to attach supporting documents). The contents of the last "Remarks" field
            on the current "New Star" form should however go to the "Comments" section
            (this probably already happens now).

            Patrick



            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.