Hi,
for me the following sample looks more like a photometric twin star than a transit.
This was just one example, but I often get results i completely disagree with. Why does this happen?
Or should i take the discovery project less serious? What do you think?
Matthl
PD looks dead for years already. No devs or masters visit the forums.
Not sure if anyone still looks into results of player analysis.
Currently PD is simple source of pretty numbers and LP items (which are worthless already).
You dont really mark transits but (sometimes not so) distinct periodic changes in star’s luminosity. If you suspect some star-on-star activity you can mark it as such (although not required as you should have been taught in tutorial) but you still have to point out that periodic behavior as “transit”.
Thank you Ms Steak. Your explanation helps me adjust my point of view.
This was just one example, but I often get results i completely disagree with.
Is a correct “transit” set when enough (>50%) players mark it? They might still be wrong…
I think correct transits are set beforehand and those player statistics are for graphs without transits just to make it less boring.
I’m more angry at problems that contain 2 or more (but rare) transits and only one of them is “correct”.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
