I wanted to propose a quick vetting tool, I find it takes me a long time to vet each observation even using the keyboard shortcuts. I find it becomes a bit of demotivator and is making we want to schedule less, especially after missing a couple of days and having 200 to vet. I know I could just not schedule but I do like having my station being used etc.
I was thinking a tool which has a low res picture of the just the waterfall and after either selecting (Good/Bad/Failed/Skip) it then automatically opens the next one.
I find the Satnogs site quite slow, maybe some image caching could help there too for the observations needing vetting.
Does anyone else think this could be useful? I have some web development experience so happy to work with some interested people on this.
Here’s a really poor mock-up of what I was thinking;
In the past there were some discussions around this idea, in general this is something that would be nice to be implemented. I guess it could live as an app in network django project. This will allow easy authentication of the station owners, that currently* are the only ones that can vet. As you say it should have simple interface and also it would be great to be mobile friendly in order to vet from mobile devices. One more thought I would add, is to have 4 different lists to vet and choose one of them:
- Observations of your stations
- Observations that you are observer
- Observations of a specific satellite
- Random observations
I have some time to devote on helping you bootstrap the app or anyone else that wants to participate, please open an issue in network repo so we can track it and discuss the details. Also feel free to join the dev chat room so we can have a more direct communication.
* Until we implement multi-vetting and allow more users to vet.
I am curious, for what reasons are you scheduling and/or vetting observations?
- if you are interested in telemetry, IMHO you don’t have to vet the observations. If an observation is successful and contains data, it is auto-vetted as good (and the data is forwarded). If an observation didn’t produce data, don’t worry, just let it as unvetted.
- if you are interested in the status of an old satellite which can’t be automatically decoded, sure, vetting is the only option to produce meaningful data.
I’ve been unable to find out the real data (see When to expect decoded data? ) but so far my feeling is that quite few of the live satellites in the satnogs db actually have telemetry decoders.
@kerel, that’s interesting. I thought I was letting the team down not vetting all my observations.