Have there been fewer Top Picks and Nominations for Top Picks in the past 6 months or so?
Note I am not talking about IOTD here since obviously there can only be 365/366 of those per year so that number never changes.
Just wondering if anyone else has noted this or if it is just my imagination.
Hi Bill,
You're not imagining it, and it's worth explaining because it's actually a normal pattern.
Top Pick Nominations and Top Picks tend to drift downward over time. The queues are powered by volunteer Submitters and Reviewers, and like any volunteer effort, activity naturally ebbs as people get busy or step back. Nothing has changed in the standards or in how images are selected, and it is not that the images themselves are getting less worthy. The bar has not moved.
Since the last staff refresh, some Submitters have left the team, and not all have been replaced. Coincidentally, 5 were added just a few hours before your post.
Reviewers have been constant in number, but their activity level has dropped somewhat, due to the small drop in Submitter activity.
The usual fix is simply to bring in and train fresh staff to refresh the queues, and the numbers recover. I have deliberately held off on doing that this time. I am reworking how this whole area of AstroBin works, and I did not want to rebuild the old structure right before changing it. I am not ready to share specifics yet, but it is actively being worked on, and one of the many goals is to make recognition less dependent on day to day staff capacity.
I’m monitoring the numbers closely and this informs decisions taken for the new system.
Thanks for showing an interest!
Salvatore
Thanks for the reply Salvatore! That all makes perfect sense and explains what I have seen.
I do agree that some changes are probably due for the site in regard to these issues and look forward to seeing what you come up with.
My thoughts on this for what they are worth (although my thoughts may not be worth much 😊)…
1) It seems the biggest issue in the system is getting qualified evaluators that have the time to properly evaluate. Not sure how to deal with that but I can imagine it is one of the bigger issues for users and yourself.
a) A sub issue is that some evaluators are not familiar with whole classes of objects if they do not image those (often due to the equipment or site they have themselves). As a result one tends to see certain categories of object show up more often as a TP for a while and then some time later that shifts to a different category as evaluators change. I am not sure if this is a problem or not but it is a thing that seems to happen.
2) As an imager who often does less common and typically smaller objects, I have noted that if the object is not “bright and shiny” it is a lot less likely to be picked even when it is technically better than one that is bright and shiny and colorful. I have noted an example of this within my own images recently where a colorful larger object that was not as good as I would have liked got picked and a smaller one I though was the best ever done of that object was ignored. Not sure if there is a fix for that but figured I would mention it. Maybe present evaluators with a small set of recent images of the same?
3) I noted that an evaluator (don’t recall who) had noted somewhere in a post that one thing that is a negative is if the evaluator thinks there was “too much AI”. I see a problem with that since one really can’t tell if it is too much AI w/o access to the integrated component before the AI or maybe a professional image of the object. That sort of judgement can be complicated by a lack of familiarity with the object, which is common with smaller stuff. One could be actually penalized for having great seeing or being really fussy with sub-frame rejection.
My take is that overall the IOTD works pretty well but the two lesser levels could potentially be improved.
Thanks!
Salvatore Iovene · Jun 22, 2026, 03:23 PM
I am reworking how this whole area of AstroBin works, and I did not want to rebuild the old structure right before changing it. I am not ready to share specifics yet, but it is actively being worked on
I’m guessing the bit “Is top pick the correct recognition” has something to do with that? I know you said you’re not ready to share specifics, but I really hope you’re not going to rely on some sort of trained (AI) algorithm to decide awards. If that’s the case, to me that is a step in the wrong direction.
Quinn Groessl · Jun 23, 2026, 01:44 AM
I really hope you’re not going to rely on some sort of trained (AI)
I could certainly see why one would want to do that, however. As we have seen, keeping reviewers is a problem, not surprising since it has to be a lot of work.
Human choices are not exactly perfect either and most of us have seen examples of that as well. That is not criticizing reviewers, it is simply unavoidable in any such sytem.
Quinn Groessl · Jun 23, 2026, 01:44 AM
I really hope you’re not going to rely on some sort of trained (AI) algorithm to decide awards.
No, that is not going to happen. The IOTD/TP will remain a human-driven process.
Bill McLaughlin · Jun 23, 2026, 02:56 AM
As we have seen, keeping reviewers is a problem
I wouldn’t say that, to be honest. Looking at the number, the drop of activity has been minimal. In 2-3 years, we churned 10% of Submitters and 5% of Reviewers. Activity levels of the ones who continued to vote remained constant.
Churn is expected, but not “a problem”.
The upcoming redesign of the process allows for self-service application and admission, and a dynamic team of jurors that doesn’t require operational intervention by AstroBin staff.
One suggestion that I might make:
You now let viewers have input on whether an award is the appropriate one for an image. That is a good idea but leaves out images that have not gotten an award but perhaps should have. Maybe add the same section to every image once the evaluation period has passed asking if the image should have an award. You would not even have to ask what level, just whether it deserved something.
I think this is important because, as mentioned above, there are wholes classes of objects that are being ignored because they are not “bright and shiny”.
This might allow you to identify if there is this sort of bias happening. I think you will find that there is.
Bill McLaughlin · Jun 23, 2026, 03:40 PM
I think this is important because, as mentioned above, there are wholes classes of objects that are being ignored because they are not “bright and shiny”.
It’s a beauty contest, what do you expect?
andrea tasselli · Jun 23, 2026, 06:51 PM
Bill McLaughlin · Jun 23, 2026, 03:40 PM
I think this is important because, as mentioned above, there are wholes classes of objects that are being ignored because they are not “bright and shiny”.
It’s a beauty contest, what do you expect?
I get that for IOTD since it makes sense to have those somewhat spectacular.
But I would suggest that in a hobby where technical expertise is one of the most critical aspects, a well done image should be rewarded in some way regardless whether it is “bright and shiny”.
It does not have to be IOTD or even TP but at least something, maybe even a new category for “best of object” or “technical merit”.
Having said that, I do not think that is possible w/o comparison to other images of the same object. That is critical to any such recognition since you need a baseline standard.
That is the missing piece, IMHO.
I kinda get you frustration given that you produce very detailed, very well rendered and beautiful images of PNs, which would be my top choice if I were to give the award. Fact is that those submitters are submitting for the top prize not for the also-run places, at least unconsciously. So there you are, it is still a beauty contest unless they decide to go for categories, as I once proposed, but that I’d strongly doubt to ever happen. I do not run the rat race anyway, just a spectator of sorts.
On a somewhat related note. I noticed that the “Too little”, “Just Right”, “Too Much” rating options seem to appear only on TP and IOTD but not nomination for TP. Any reason for that? It would seem like a nomination could also be any of those.