Observation 291591: CUBESAT XI 5 (28895)

[Zathras]

Regarding Observation 291591 …
@motionlab
CW present but vetted as bad. Why?

[pierros]

I went ahead and fixed this to “Good”. Unfortunately @motionlab has been consistently rating observations wrongly, and he have already reached out to them to ensure that they will follow the Rating guidelines.

Given the scale of our operations and the numerous new users, we should implement some changes in the UI to ensure that people are aware of the Rating guidelines, and consider crowdsourcing the vetting with multiple votes per observation casted.

[motionlab]

Hi,

sorry for the trouble. I can’t apologize enough. Please see

Motionlab Berlin vetting as failed instead of bad

We have reached out again via email to the user. We need to find a way to “protect” ourselves as we grow from accidental or neglected vetting. There are open technical issues on the satnogs-network repository (like the ability to re-vet as a ground station owner), and ongoing discussions on how to do that in scale (crowd-sourcing vetting, ML automation and other). On the specific “issue” with @motionlab, I will be deactivating temporarily their account once the notice we sent over email expire…

Sorry again
Ansgar