This year, we will excited to be releasing our a new observation submission tool that will be replacing WebObs. We are opening the floor for feature requests or improvements that we can make in our new application!
1 Like
I Like this feature:
Your Total Observations:
Also:
-
Search for observations (to edit, delete, or view)
For this feature:
- Download your observations
I wish it were in an easy to use .csv format so that I could operate on it ( for example, to average ). I wish the download had the format commas to easily upload the re-worked photometry. Hard to explain without going through the painful exercise of downloading and then uploading. The simplest test is to upload an untouched download file. That would be a good start.
Ray
Webobs is one of the AAVSO tools that has consistently worked well for me - never generating frustration or causing me to waste time. It worries me that this well-functioning aspect of the AAVSO website is the one being considered for āimprovementā. Hopefully, the upgrade will work as well as Webobs.
WebObs was apparently written before the advent of widespread timeseries observations or the proliferation of passbands in use. The existing search and edit features are not up to snuff for present use. Two requests:
- Make the WebObs search operation filter by passbands.
- Make it possible to select a whole range of observations for deletion.
The need can be seen in the following situation: letās say I run a milti-hour timeseries of BVRI. After uploading my data I notice that there is a pervasive problem in R band (maybe my filter wheel had trouble). I need to delete all of my R band data - think about how painful that process is in the current system.
It would also be helpful to be able to exclude observers from a search. I try to follow what my group of PEP observers are doing, and WebObs conveniently supports filtering by the PEP observation type. But one observer submits considerable timeseries data. These data bloat results from the WebObs search, which is a problem because WebObs has only primitive means for navigating within the pages of search results.
On the submission side of WebObs, we urgently need a way for observers to view their data in the context of the current light curve. Most anomalous data could be kept out of the AID if people screened therir submissions, but there is no way to do that within WebObs, and it appears that few observers take the time to open up a light curve in LCG to perform quality control.
Tom
I have no great heart-burn from the current webobs. I donāt see the need to be able to easily delete large amounts of data from previous uploads. When I am doing single object, single observation uploads I have been known to make a typo or use the wrong comparison star data. Using the current webobs search and delete then upload the corrected record works just fine. I rarely do massive time-series. A much better solution would be do data checking and validation before you upload your data. I presume much of the problems come from automated data reduction and upload without checking and validation which should be part of the process. A much bigger concern to me is getting everyone who is doing multi-filter observing to transforming the magnitudes to a standard system, yet huge amounts of data in the database isnāt. I donāt understand why that is. Text and csv formats are as basic as can be. I donāt see a real need to have any additional formats for uploadā¦ If you are using a speadsheet program it is mighty easy, if your sheets are in the same format as the extended format, to export and upload.
Jim (DEY)
Hello,
A cool feature of the future Observation Submission Tool would be that it accept (all) more type of files for uploading - not only txt or csv.
Especially XLS files.
Thanxs in advance,
C
Hi Team - I would like to see an iPhone app that I can use in the field to upload visual observations on the fly. I donāt need to write down the observation, but can enter it immediately and easily through a phone app. Or at least make the observations mobile phone friendly.
Iāve often run into not being able to upload submissions shortly after observation. I wonder if it is because I am in California and entering time in GMT and the current webobs wonāt accept the entry? This was an off and on issue over the past year.
Observer Site and Airmass
It would be cool if observers could optionally include their site coordinates. Note that the AAVSO profile settings has a way to include one or more sites, so this could have a drop-down widget for easy selection.
If the user decides to include his/her site data, the airmass could then be computed automagically (say) by poshing a button next to the input field (optional). This would also offer some level of consistency checking (was the object above horizon or at least close to it during obs time from that site).
CS
HB
Hi Aru,
Iām sitting at my computer and logging in all my visual observations from hand written notes.
I remember when I first started using the observation tool in 2021, the browser would remember what I typed in and I could just select it instead of re-typing in each Star Identifier, Chart ID or Comments. That saved a lot of time.
Iām not sure if that is a setting in my browser, or a cookie on the site?
It is kind of like āauto-fillā so it makes it faster to enter the Visual Observations.
It would be nice to have that again. (Please comment if it is something I can turn back āonā.) 
Thanks,
Andrew
Aside from only two decimal places for magnitude, it seems to work.
It doesnāt seem suited for multiple observations of different stars. Once you submit, it gives you only the search option. It doesnāt take you back to the submission form.
Hi!
Iām trying to submit an observation file but I get the following response for every row:
**Row 1: (Observation Time) The observation date must not be in the future.**Row 1: (Magnitude) Ensure this value is a multiple of step size 0.01.
First row is:
MU Cam,2460664.29174,14.841,0.015,CV,NO,STD,000-BFT-944,18.574,000-BFT-945,18.838,1.662,na,X36511FJW,|VMAGINS=20.196|CMAGINS=18.574|CREFMAG=13.219|CREFERR=0.008|KMAGINS=18.838|KREFMAG=13.482|KREFERR=0.009
Date is last night (Dec 19th) which, to the best of my knowledge, is not in the future. Anyone knows what is wrong here? Report file produced by Phoranso.
Magnus
Aru:
In your new āSubmit Photometric Observations Appā you seem to use the term āSingleā to mean only a manual entry of a photometric result? There is no obvious place under āSingleā to submit /attach an AEFF File?
The term āMultipleā is used for entry/attachment of an AEFF Report file and not a manual entry of a photometric result?
It is clearly possible to have only one photometric result (single target magnitude) in an AEFF Report file. In this case, it seems to me you must enter the single target magnitude AEFF Report under āMultipleā?
I think you may want to rethink the wording/explanation?? I think it is unnecessary to change the two data entry categories (Manual vs File) but appropriate to change the terminology?.
Ken
Getting an error:
Unknown error while parsing: Length of names argument (15) does not match number of table columns (4)
File uploads fine to WebObs. File is created by ASTAP software.
Mark
Also having problem this morning with āObservation date must not be in the future.ā
I fully support some of the aims of the new observation submission tool - I love the idea of making it easy to see where my observation fits with other recent observations.
Hello There,
First submission with the new tool ā¦
A pity.
Iāve got this message :
(It was automatically translated in french, which is of no utility, by the way)
observation date must not be in the future.** Row 1: (Magnitude) Assurez-vous que cette valeur est un multiple de la taille de pas 0.01. Row 1: (Magnitude Error) Assurez-vous que cette valeur est un multiple de la taille de pas 0.001. Row 1: (Airmass) Assurez-vous que cette valeur comporte au plus 7 caractĆØres (actuellement 12). Row 1: (Software) Assurez-vous que cette valeur comporte au plus 30 caractĆØres (actuellement 45).
So goog translation in ENG, for better calrity :
Row 1: (Observation Time) The observation date must not be in the future. Row 1: (Magnitude) Make sure this value is a multiple of step size 0.01. Row 1: (Magnitude Error) Make sure this value is a multiple of step size 0.001. Row 1: (Airmass) Make sure this value is at most 7 characters long (currently 12). Row 1: (Software) Make sure this value is at most 30 characters (currently 45).
So :
1 - the dates of the submitted observations were obviously in the past,
2 - ONLY TWO DECIMALS for the magnitude will results in a loss of data. I plead for 3 DECIMALS.
3 - Only 30 characters for sofwares is too short. Please upgrade to 50 or 60. Otherwise, we will have to add some notes for describing the process.
Finally, I uploaded the data using the old way.
Christophe
I canāt use the new submit observation tool until the precision limitation is removed and the āfuture dateā issue is fixed. So no further features can be tested. Is there an expected date when these features will be updated?
Agree, the tool is not usable in its current state
Hi everyone! Thank you all for your feedback. Iāll be getting to fixing these issues after the holidays. Thanks for your patience!