I believe that in order to get to a closer statistical approximation of the representation of the imagers we need to double the numbers that have responded.
You see, imagine two cohorts of astro buffs, one will do visual, the other imaging.
And they're off...picture them racing to their respective equipment, setting up etc.
Assuming the two groups spend the whole night out and thus the same amount of time under the stars, picture the sleepy heads returning home, tripping over things, crashing into bed.
Then,
The next day picture the entire whole lot of people who did visual logging into IIS, chatting away, happy and content.
.
Lest say half the imagers actually managed to get anything useable to process.
So picture the more grumpy (comparatively) cohort of imagers. They have to download images, process, align, stack, scrap, restart, fiddle, adjust, yell at the computer that just crashed out of memory, etc.
Picture them doing this for about a week.
The half that didn't capture anything have had time to respond to the survey, the other grumpy bunch are probably still trying to get something out of the few frames they managed to capture in between clouds so haven't had time to log on and vote.
Thus,
We need to double (at least I'd say) the number of imagers represented in the current poll.
Then again, as Mike said, 90 is a smallish sample especially given the current IIS membership and it probably is about half and half which is really great if that's the case. In fact, you might even find that some imagers like myself sometimes even look up at the sky with a second scope or binos while the rest of the rig is imaging....
maybe that makes us hybrids....
OMG ! I'm a Hybrid !!!
frank
