Calibration Crater Views Vs Crater Particle Views part 1

[TitritEL]

Hello Dusters!

After being one of the struggling dusters in locating non calibration views containing possible Craters we looking for i decided to share this experience with others facing same problem as I am still facing it too. A Special Thank you to Former Co-Dusters Michael Capraro and Augosto Ardizzone for guiding me in this journey. Before I have been clicking on calibration views and i thought i located dust but i have never received credit for it on events log and asked them question nd they told me Those are not findings they are calibration views which are there only as demo but if if we click on some of those and showed up on events log then its a crater finding not calibration view.

I would like to share this as reference to others so we can all be on same page and we can probably discuss views we mark as craters and why we think so I am attaching one right now plus calibration views and event log listing:

One Question to our Expert Scientist of Stardust@Home project Mr.Andrew Westphal, Mr.Zack and others is why we do Have Calibration views in the process of VM loaded images ? is it for demo, referral ? I know so many other space projects have calibration back ups I think the Parker Solar Probe data will have them too when it touches the sun zone, what is the role of this calibration views in our project?

Note :More attachments next post Part two

Thank you all,

Fatima EL AISSAOUI
Titrit EL

[DanZ]

Hi Fatima,

The calibrations are the team's way of determining whether you are doing this correctly or not. In other words, if you are missing the calibrations, which are known tracks/craters, then we know you're probably also missing the real thing when you see it.

This was a very valuable tool in the early days of the aerogel search, and also allowed us to develop the point system, which motivated many (too much so in some cases!).

But I think at one point Augusto said that he thought calibrations in the foils search were a waste of time (because the craters are a lot easier to spot and in general, get a handle on). I'm starting to agree! Thus I might bring this up with Andrew. But if not, please bring it up for me in the next telecon!

Till then, thanks for being so thorough with your dusting, it's inspiring!

Dan

[McAngus]

Dear Dan,
thanks.

I actually wrote in the Red Team Forum:

In my previous replay I avoided to cite the PMs in craters that are another 15% waste of time.
In Foils Search the PMs don’t make a rating, they are simply a memorandum (even if you get a useless point for each of them).
Thus I strongly believe that 1 PM/100 real images is more than enough and also the random submission is not convenient (I find also 5 consecutive PMs sometime).

However here I want to underline the didactic aspect that, in my opinion, the PMs should have.
Since I "speak" better with images rather than words, you can see what I mean here:

[DanZ]

Ah, got it Augusto! Not a bad idea : ) I'll pass it along.
Thanks!
Dan