Decisions decisions ...

[Tiny Clanger]

I think this needs a new thread of it's own! A recent suggestion by Zermelo  here

reminded me of this https://www.lucidchart.com/pages/flowcharts/stargazing-what-am-i-looking-at

So, to construct a similar decision tree type chart for folk inquiring 'what telescope should I buy' , what questions and answers would you incorporate ?

I think (rather sadly to be honest) that the first one on my list would have to be

Q1: 'How much money do you have to spend ?'

A1 "Under £100 "= "Have you considered binoculars ?"

A2 " Over £100" = "OK, we may be able to help !"

[M40]

Q2: How much storage space have you got?

A1: Very Little

A2: Not a problem

👍

[wibblefish]

Let me see what I came up with during my quest to buy one recently, I am not sure I can come up with good questions though and wether the answers are right is debateable!   

- Storage, do you access to a large storage area (i.e. conservatory, shed, garage etc.) Yes (any scope), No (consider Mak, short tubes, tabletop, binoculars)

- Portability, do you need to be able to move to a different location (other than easy access garden etc)? Yes (consider Mak, short tubes, grab and go, binoculars etc.), No

- Goto, do you want a scope that can find stars rather than manual moving? Yes (consider some sort of NexStar or whatever), No

- Grab and Go? i.e. something that doesn't need collimating etc.? Yes (consider pre-collimated scopes / refractors / maks / binoculars) No

- Imaging, are you interesting in using a dslr with the telescope?  Yes (consider spending more £££) / No

- What are you interested in observing? Planets + Moon / DSO / Other? 

- Ultimately one of the other things was is it in stock somewhere.

I was considering the same thing after seeing that post and what I was thinking instead of a flow chart was you could have some sort of list of telescopes and "tags" with different things that when people select various bits (i.e. budget, ratings, what I want to use it for, space, weight etc) then it would be able to cull the list to relevant scopes. I could see it being a website database and maybe some sort of reviews thing, might be a fun little tool to build.

I am pretty sure all roads lead to Dobsonian  

Edited December 21, 2020 by wibblefish

[Tiny Clanger]

All good suggestions so far, I think it also needs :

Q " Who are you buying for ?"

A1 "Me, I'm an adult "

A2 " A child" ➡️  "Tabletop dob or binoculars"

A3 " Another adult who expressed an interest in astronomy but I know nothing about it" ➡️ "Get them a voucher"

[jacobingonzo]

I have a feeling this could end up being an unmanageable humungous beast but that said  in its basic form it would be an excellent  candidate for a sticky as this topic seems to be a stock question from the budding astro newbie

 the basics as already suggested - who's it for- astro P or DSO- and I would split the amount to spend into bands under 100, 100-250 etc etc even with those few bits the decision tree will be the size of epping forrest.

a very good thread and worthy of some serious thought

 

J

Edited December 21, 2020 by jacobingonzo

[Tiny Clanger]

31 minutes ago, jacobingonzo said:

I have a feeling this could end up being an unmanageable humungous beast but that said  in its basic form it would be an excellent  candidate for a sticky as this topic seems to be a stock question from the budding astro newbie

 the basics as already suggested - who's it for- astro P or DSO- and I would split the amount to spend into bands under 100, 100-250 etc etc even with those few bits the decision tree will be the size of epping forrest.

a very good thread and worthy of some serious thought

J

Thanks .

I like the idea of a forest of bonsai decision trees rather than a single giant redwood. Perhaps each individual tree could deal with a specific price range ...

[bomberbaz]

1 hour ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Thanks .

I like the idea of a forest of bonsai decision trees rather than a single giant redwood. Perhaps each individual tree could deal with a specific price range ...

Not sure if that is the right starting point. So often you see people saying they want to do visual at first but will want to go imaging later / attach a dslr or similar. 

People don't understand that the two branches are quite different although EEVA is now bridging that gap to some extent and so this needs to be clear from the outset.

[jacobingonzo]

I guess the start would be 1. "Who is the scope for" that has to be the main driver -then are there any age, health, height, space, mobility issues

so then we need to know where they want to start, -2.  Visual and Imaging or do we add EEVA for a third? 

The next decisions are , as TC said ,in price ranges ... 3-we detail in  each  price range the scopes or Bino's suggested with pros and cons based on who the scope is for in light of  answers in no 1 and how they will help them achieve their answers to no 2. 

Once we have covered the scopes we can create sub trees for  Essential tools and may be optics etc this is where the forest could sprout

If people are not sure they will be able to go through each tree to see what takes their fancy

Im sure we would need a mathematical beard (or beardess) to make sure we are covering each decision correctly

 

J

[Zermelo]

13 minutes ago, jacobingonzo said:

we would need a mathematical beard (or beardess)

I'm pretty sure there would be no such thing anywhere on a forum like this.

[jacobingonzo]

surely there is someone on the forum that has some sort of background in creating flowcharts? by its very nature astronomy would attract those with that sort of mindset?

 

J

[John]

I tend to feel that an interactive, iterative process involving questions and responses from both the enquirer and from experienced members is likely to result, ultimately, in better tailored options than a more structured, formulaic, approach.

Yes, a number of the questions asked and answers given will involve some repetition but that process also provides the opportunity for the enquirer to learn about why certain choices have certain implications and also to build their relationship with the existing forum membership.

SGL is after all an astronomy discussion forum 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2020 by John

[Tiny Clanger]

15 hours ago, Zermelo said:

I'm pretty sure there would be no such thing anywhere on a forum like this.

I think the colloquial meaning of 'beard' that comes to my mind may be somewhat at odds with Jacobingonzo's too ...

Let's assume that by beard they mean really smart, articulate and  highly knowledgeable person , the term obviously being derived from Prof. Dame (or should that be 'Dame Prof. ?) Mary Beard , 😀

Anyway, back to the bonsai forest of decision trees ...

16 hours ago, bomberbaz said:

Not sure if that is the right starting point. So often you see people saying they want to do visual at first but will want to go imaging later / attach a dslr or similar. 

People don't understand that the two branches are quite different although EEVA is now bridging that gap to some extent and so this needs to be clear from the outset.

I think this has merit as a major initial division in tree types, deciduous and evergreen. The majority of beginners have a casual interest in photography : yes, they'd say they'd quite like to take a snap or two, but the realities of the cost of serious astro photo kit come as a terrible shock . However there are some serious photographers who enter the hobby from that angle with an understanding of the kind of money required , and people wanting to move into astrophotography from observing. so maybe the forest needs dividing in two right at the start :

Are you ONLY interested in taking photographs of astronomical objects, or are you mainly intending to look at them, at least to start with ?

Remember the initial intent was to see if it is possible to give beginners an easily navigated set of commonly cited parameters to work through and gain an idea of what telescope they might think about buying. There's no reason why some of the trees can't be specialist ones too, and thinking about those will be interesting and no doubt provoke a lot of thought and debate, but beginners are the people I'm most interested in addressing .

Heather

[Second Time Around]

I'm not sure that a decision tree is the right answer as it would have to be so complex. However, I do think that Heather has a point.

Would a list of standard questions be a better idea? As John has pointed out questions and answers give a two-way exchange of information.

Without standard questions something could be missed out. I remember one occasion when it turned out a newbie not only had to carry a scope up and down stairs, but would have had to leave the mount unattended in an outside public place.  That was discovered only at the last minute and so the earlier advice was inappropriate.

 

[Tiny Clanger]

8 minutes ago, Second Time Around said:

I'm not sure that a decision tree is the right answer as it would have to be so complex. However, I do think that Heather has a point.

Would a list of standard questions be a better idea? As John has pointed out questions and answers give a two-way exchange of information.

Without standard questions something could be missed out. I remember one occasion when it turned out a newbie not only had to carry a scope up and down stairs, but would have had to leave the mount unattended in an outside public place.  That was discovered only at the last minute and so the earlier advice was inappropriate.

 

A list of standard questions would , in theory be great.

However, many ( if not most!) people asking what to buy on here have simply not bothered to do any research at all for themselves.

.I can say this with absolute confidence, because before buying anything myself (back in early summer) I did a lot of research, and came to the sad conclusion that nothing existed in my price bracket which could be stored in my small house and carried outside easily by me, and would be a substantial step up from the 114 EQ Celestron I inherited . But suddenly the first 150 heritage dob's appeared , so I was saved !

I spent a lot of time and effort on due diligence to avoid wasting my money, all my questions were asked via a search engine  and much of the clear, well thought out advice I read was on here , so (as I said in my first ever post) months later I joined up here in October to say a retrospective thank you, and in the hope that I could help the occasional, even newer than me newbie from the perspective of a recent beginner with shallow pockets.

That so many folk do not spend the time and effort to find things out for themselves , and just repeat similar questions for buying advice here, is why I think something like a simple decision tree would be effective, but they probably would not engage with a list of questions, however well worded. The former looks like a fun quiz, the latter like a school test or a tax return !

[Zermelo]

As I was partly responsible for this in the other thread, allow me to admit that it was posed in a speculative (and probably over-ambitious!) vein. I don't know whether such a thing could be constructed in a useful way (that's what I meant by not having the knowledge; I can knock up flowcharts easily enough, but I wouldn't be competent to frame the questions). But I felt the need for something.

I do agree with @John that such a thing could not, and probably should not, be a replacement for the more detailed dialogues that take place with new members. Those are useful discussions for the newcomer and for others who choose to search for them some time later.

I also agree with @Tiny Clanger that there is a great variation in the amount of prior due diligence done by new members before asking the "big question". This is to be expected, with the wide variety of potentially interested people (including some that only want advice for buying a present). Part of the challenge here is that when you're starting out, you don't know what you don't know. Like Heather, I did some reading up first, but eventually it gets to the point of diminishing returns; there's an optimal point where you have enough understanding to start asking questions of yourself, but you're not really sure you'll be asking the right ones - enter the experts. But if you ask too soon, you (a) require people to quiz you immediately for some basic information, and (b) may not be able to engage constructively if you haven't understood enough about the topic in the first place. This forum happens to be very active, and is lucky enough to have some individuals who spend a lot of time answering queries, which is great. But if some sort of "triage tool" (of whatever format) could be devised to frame the initial encounter, it might allow the experts to spend more of their time on higher-value input, and would also mean that the contextual information about the enquirer is captured in a standard way, and as completely as necessary.

@Second Time Around suggests a list of questions instead of a tree, and that would certainly be simpler. It might be appropriate to drill down just a bit in places by deploying "If yes, then ...?" type constructs. It might also be appropriate to embed links to reference items and stickies at certain points, if the respondent doesn't understand enough to answer a question that could prove important to a purchasing decision (e.g. "How dark are your skies? You don't know what that means? OK, read this, then check out your location on this web site). Such a template, when completed, could form part of a new member's profile, and give a context to any subsequent questions they ask. 

PS
when I said earlier that a forum like this one was unlikely to contain any bearded mathematicians, I was being ironic 😀

 

 

Edited December 22, 2020 by Zermelo

[Newforestgimp]

Having very recently gone through this process, my biggest take away is don’t try and find a scope that does both visual and AP. Just accept it’s different tools for different jobs, once I squared that one away my decision making became much clearer.

[Xilman]

19 hours ago, Zermelo said:

I'm pretty sure there would be no such thing anywhere on a forum like this.

I have a beard and I have an Erdős number of 2.  Will that do?

[JamesF]

16 minutes ago, Xilman said:

Erdős number

I had to look this up :)

Apparently Angela Merkel (yes, that one) has a number of at most 5, and Lavoisier, who was executed just shy of 120 years before Erdős was even born, still manages 13.

What amused me most however was this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s_number#Variations

Natalie Portman apparently has an Erdős-Bacon-Sabbath number of 11, which is allegedly only one less than Richard Feynman :D

James

[Xilman]

40 minutes ago, JamesF said:

I had to look this up

Apparently Angela Merkel (yes, that one) has a number of at most 5, and Lavoisier, who was executed just shy of 120 years before Erdős was even born, still manages 13.

What amused me most however was this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s_number#Variations

Natalie Portman apparently has an Erdős-Bacon-Sabbath number of 11, which is allegedly only one less than Richard Feynman

James

My Erdős-Bacon number is 6. Erdős is by two routes, Peter Montgomery and Sam Wagstaff. The shortest route to Bacon I can find is through Bamber Gascoigne then Stephen Fry. No idea what a Sabbath number may be but I will try to find out.

I have a link of length three to all US presidents since and including Eisenhower. Roger Penrose and I know each other. He has the same relationship with QE-II who was on speaking terms with the presidents.

Bill Gates was my great-grand boss. My boss was Roger Needham, his Nathan Myrhvold and his was Bill.

The classic 6-degrees of connection applies to almost every one. I doubt that we are more than six apart.

(Added in edit. My EB number is five. 2 to E and three to B. I can't count.  Doh!)

 

Edited December 22, 2020 by Xilman
Addendum

[Xilman]

1 minute ago, Xilman said:

My Erdős-Bacon number is 6. Erdős is by two routes, Peter Montgomery and Sam Wagstaff. The shortest route to Bacon I can find is through Bamber Gascoigne then Stephen Fry. No idea what a Sabbath number may be but I will try to find out.

I have a link of length three to all US presidents since and including Eisenhower. Roger Penrose and I know each other. He has the same relationship with QE-II who was on speaking terms with the presidents.

Bill Gates was my great-grand boss. My boss was Roger Needham, his Nathan Myrhvold and his was Bill.

The classic 6-degrees of connection applies to almost every one. I doubt that we are more than six apart.

I probably don't have a Sabbath number given that listening to my singing voice has been classified as cruel and unusual punishment. Perhaps I should try to get one.

I do appear in the Wikipedia list.

[JamesF]

1 minute ago, Xilman said:

No idea what a Sabbath number may be but I will try to find out.

Similar to the Bacon Number, but having recorded with a member of Black Sabbath.  Apparently Brian Cox has an EBS number of 13.

James

[JamesF]

4 minutes ago, Xilman said:

The classic 6-degrees of connection applies to almost every one. I doubt that we are more than six apart.

Some people consider me quite reclusive (mostly only those who know me, to be fair), but given your academic connections if we do have such a link then it would probably come through the late 80s Computer Science department at Warwick University.  Someone there surely must have occasionally kicked about with Ian Stewart, who must have all sorts of other connections that you might connect with.

James

[Ricochet]

The biggest problem I think there is with this approach is that we all have differing opinions. If a flowchart were to be produced, it would contain only the answer given by one or perhaps a select few to each question. Where a new user posts a query here, we can all give our differing opinions for the user to consider, and any advice would be tailored specifically for that user based on their responses as in conversation we may pick up o something that would be missed otherwise.

[Xilman]

18 minutes ago, JamesF said:

Some people consider me quite reclusive (mostly only those who know me, to be fair), but given your academic connections if we do have such a link then it would probably come through the late 80s Computer Science department at Warwick University.  Someone there surely must have occasionally kicked about with Ian Stewart, who must have all sorts of other connections that you might connect with.

James

Quite possibly. I have a number of high-profile CS connections, including Mike Brady and Tony [removed word], and I was active in the JANET secure-email initiative in the 90's. We should take this off-line as it has now become very seriously off-topic.

This p**ses me off no end. Why on earth should Tony's surname be censored? The Sconthorpe problem strikes again.

A search on "inventor of the Quicksort algorithm" will find him.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Xilman
Rant about Bowdlerism.

[Zermelo]

3 hours ago, Ricochet said:

The biggest problem I think there is with this approach is that we all have differing opinions. If a flowchart were to be produced, it would contain only the answer given by one or perhaps a select few to each question. Where a new user posts a query here, we can all give our differing opinions for the user to consider, and any advice would be tailored specifically for that user based on their responses as in conversation we may pick up o something that would be missed otherwise.

A fair point, and of course many will welcome a variety of opinion and feel comfortable in rationalizing it to a conclusion themselves. Some others would perhaps prefer more of a consensus steer.