by Chris Peterson » Mon May 13, 2013 1:35 am
RJN wrote:Thanks, Chris. In my opinion the APOD text sounds more topical and newsworthy if the image posted is described in colloquial language as occurring recently, if it is.
Agreed. Still, if there were a way to include both in some cases...
Sorry -- that's (another) good point. As you know many times the image EXIF data may tell you this information, as might a link on that day's text. If it's really important but obscured please email Jerry or me and will give you the best timing information we have.
Yes, sometimes it's there. Unfortunately, it seems like this comes up most often with the TWAN images, and other images by people who specialize in nightscapes. Those images usually have their headers stripped, and very often (for whatever reason) the original websites don't give the date and time. And those are precisely the images that most people seem interested in trying to match to star maps. Perhaps you can (strongly) encourage submitters of images to provide accurate date and time information for their images, especially where there is content that is transient.
Oh, and unfortunately, it looks like tomorrow's APOD (e.g. 2013 May 13) includes the words "last week".
So it does. And that's a very good example of everything going wrong: the imager has no website with additional information, the image itself has had its EXIF header stripped, and the nature of the image is such that people will be interested in knowing the time very accurately (based on comments a few weeks ago about another image with a plane in it).
With respect to the Sunday repeats: maybe you should put them on a slightly different page format. Instead of "Astronomy Picture of the Day", maybe something like "Classic Astronomy Picture of the Day" or "Astronomy Picture of the Day Revisited". And along with the original caption, you could list the date of the original appearance, or the most recent appearance. If the information has changed, you could tack it on as an editor's note, which is nice as it allows us to compare the original thinking with the current. Anyway, just thinking out loud. I don't have a problem with repeats, but maybe if they were clearly identified as such, more people would grasp the concept.
[quote="RJN"]Thanks, Chris. In my opinion the APOD text sounds more topical and newsworthy if the image posted is described in colloquial language as occurring recently, if it is.[/quote]
Agreed. Still, if there were a way to include both in some cases...
[quote]Sorry -- that's (another) good point. As you know many times the image EXIF data may tell you this information, as might a link on that day's text. If it's really important but obscured please email Jerry or me and will give you the best timing information we have.[/quote]
Yes, sometimes it's there. Unfortunately, it seems like this comes up most often with the TWAN images, and other images by people who specialize in nightscapes. Those images usually have their headers stripped, and very often (for whatever reason) the original websites don't give the date and time. And those are precisely the images that most people seem interested in trying to match to star maps. Perhaps you can (strongly) encourage submitters of images to provide accurate date and time information for their images, especially where there is content that is transient.
[quote]Oh, and unfortunately, it looks like tomorrow's APOD (e.g. 2013 May 13) includes the words "last week".[/quote]
So it does. And that's a very good example of everything going wrong: the imager has no website with additional information, the image itself has had its EXIF header stripped, and the nature of the image is such that people will be interested in knowing the time very accurately (based on comments a few weeks ago about another image with a plane in it).
With respect to the Sunday repeats: maybe you should put them on a slightly different page format. Instead of "Astronomy Picture of the Day", maybe something like "Classic Astronomy Picture of the Day" or "Astronomy Picture of the Day Revisited". And along with the original caption, you could list the date of the original appearance, or the most recent appearance. If the information has changed, you could tack it on as an editor's note, which is nice as it allows us to compare the original thinking with the current. Anyway, just thinking out loud. I don't have a problem with repeats, but maybe if they were clearly identified as such, more people would grasp the concept.