Forgotten vetting?

Is there a reason that half the scheduled passes on my gs not vetted for the last 4 pages of schedules?

Might be because the people doing the vetting are volunteers, and will get around to it when they can?

Station owners are also able to vet observations on their own station, so feel free to vet them yourself if you’re that concerned about your stations stats having some orange in it.


It appears that station owners also are able to DELETE unvetted observations.

I also have observations that are coming up on one month old on my stations, yet to be vetted. Apparently these observations weren’t really all that important, if they are sitting around for a month. All of the observations that I schedule are vetted within 24 hours, and usually less than 8.

1 Like

Also don’t forget as station own bob you can get them yourself.

I also am a volunteer, and I purchased the hardware here and pay the bill. If someone schedules a sat pass, then surely they have a reason. But why not vet the pass? Is there some reasoning for not vetting?

Can the data collected during the pass be useful if not vetted? If it is useful, then why vet at all?

1 Like

Why? I have no reason to schedule those passes.

I got auto corrected should have been Vet not get.

Also because it’s like good to Vet observations. And as a station owner I personally vet any observations I see unveted on my station.

Yes, there are observations with data that are not vetted yet which can be useful.

Because it adds to the metadata of the observation that this observation has or doesn’t have signal of the satellite. So, not having this info in its metadata doesn’t make the observation less significant.

And this is why I disagree with the @K3RLD’s suggestion to delete an already done observation just because it is unvetted.

Finally have in mind that the plan is to move to auto-vetting in the future, so all unvetted observations will be vetted automatically.


At NO POINT did I suggest that deletion is appropriate. I merely mentioned that it is a possibility afforded to station owners.

The only observations that I have ever deleted fall into two categories:

  1. Observations that I mistakenly vetted at “good”, that were bad. Because I don’t feel it’s worth the effort to get moderators involved to make a correction, I simply delete the observation.
  2. Scheduled observations (not completed ones) that interfere with important observations that I feel take precedence. These have almost exclusively been NOAA mass observations (which I have not been silent on my dislike of).


I realize that there is a 3rd category of deleted observations - when I mistakenly forgot to hit the “none” toggle before hitting the “schedule” button, which results in the accidental scheduling of HUNDREDS of observations. Another issue I have been vocal about - it takes me 10 seconds to accidentally schedule hundreds of observations, but at least half an hour (and a broken wrist) to go back and delete those erroneous scheduled observations.


Thanks fredy.

Question: any idea how many (what percentage) entities that use db care if the pass is vetted?

I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you wrote.

About the rest reasons for deletion 2 and 3 sound totally valid. About the 1st one may I suggest using either the undo button (in the header the first time you do the vetting) or using the links below, at least until we create buttons for re-vetting an observation.
Change vet to good:{obs_number}/good/
Change vet to bad:{obs_number}/bad/
Change vet to failed:{obs_number}/failed/

Unfortunately is hard to say a percentage as the observations and their data are open for everyone to use. However I know that satellite owners and some scientists have used vetting metadata for filtering and create their own data collections to work with.

I really understand your frustration with having to delete many observations. Unfortunately I have been in this situation many times before (btw feel free to message me if you need to massively delete observations). Also there are many other things that are still frustrating in all the aspects of satnogs (client, network, db, decoders, dashboards), and I really feel grateful for all the people helping by giving feedback, identifying and finding bugs and issues and even sometimes coding solutions.

Unfortunately resources (mostly time and people) are limited and we need to prioritize the needs for each of these aspects. For example the last couple of weeks we work (and will continue to work) on bringing the architecture of all the satnogs aspects to be able to support more users with good performance and less bugs/issues. At the same time, we try to establish a more scientific approach to this project and having more useful data for scientific projects and analysis (see artifacts, unique satellite id and transmitter changes topics).

I’ll stop it here as this started sound like lecturing and this isn’t my intention… @K3RLD you gave me a good opportunity to analyze what currently working on and I will be happy another time to analyze it more especially the part that I omitted, which is keeping satnogs operating… with all the awesome station owners and observers that give as much time as they can to keep things going on and make satnogs greater!


I would also like to make it clear that all those that are working “under the hood” on SatNogs have my ultimate respect - I am truly amazed how so much functionality can come from volunteers.

I know I come off as a whiny curmudgeon - but I do really appreciate the work that the SatNogs team is doing and every morning I look forward to vetting my observations and scheduling new ones for the coming days. Thanks, guys!