Credited for your work?
-
by gibby1st
Hello,
I was doing some classification and it said to log in and get credit for your work. What does it me by credit?
Posted
-
by mschwamb scientist, translator in response to gibby1st's comment.
Means you'll add you in the acknowledgments for the paper and acknowledged your contribution and you'll get added to our coauthor website (Journals won't let us have 50,000 authors listed but we can list eveyone on a website). If there's a particularly interesting feature that you mark in Talk or the interface that becomes a separate paper, we would most likely ask you to be a coauthor on the paper. So by logging in, the Zooniverse has your contact info and we know what features you've marked in Talk and in the main interface.
Happy Mapping,
~Meg
Posted
-
Do you know yet when the paper will be published? Thanks
Posted
-
by mschwamb scientist, translator in response to natalieliggett's comment.
We're aiming to submit to the journal by the early Fall and the it will be reviewed and critiqued by an anonymous referee (a scientist in the field ) and then once the reviewer and the editor agree the paper is of sufficient quality for publication, it gets accepted by the journal and published. More news to come on the blog over the next few months.
Cheers,
~Meg
Posted
-
by Blendouble
Could we have a leader board on the planetfour.org website that tallies a basic verified statistic from each mode per user.
The verified stats possibilities could be: (1) how many images have been identified with craters, (2) how many craters users have been pinpointed, and (3) how many craters have been outlined?
Having a leader board would seriously help the motivation for monotonously putting dots and circles on an image over and over again. It would be like a game then, with level-ups. I know people who, at times, love to do monotonous work if it improves a level statistic about their profile/character.
Posted
-
by wassock moderator
Hi again Blendouble, at pushing 5 million images marked for the main activity here, motivation doesn't seem to be a major issue. But there are issues with maintaining the quality of any kind of 'work' under a piece rate system. This is why standards for quality management systems effectively don't allow for payment per number of items made/tested/processed without there being rigorous quality control systems running in the background. Put simply if participants were being 'paid', in terms of their position on the leader board, by the number of images they process they may be less inclined to spend as long doing the marking. Particularly given that the whole point of the exercise is that no-one checks individual answers and the group mean is all.
I agree with you though that some numbers to give the overall picture would be of interest.
Posted