I Wish I Could ---

[JimNumn]

OK, I've done about 600 photos. Time for some reactions.

I wish I could:
1. Go back to an image and mark more features.
2. Magnify an image.
3. Add a comment to explain something I've marked.
4. See more "feature" photos under Examples, especially ones that match the Features list.
5. Understand better when to check the boxes for Linear Features, etc.
6. Understand better what NOT to mark. For example, what looks to be obvious volcanic subsidence or tracks of rolling boulders.
7. See how I'm doing, perhaps with some specific photos. I have far more features identified than confirmed. Am I marking too many? Clearly, I'm 'way ahead of the folks doing confirmations.

[kmasterdo]

Hi JimNumn, welcome to CosmoQuest! As far as some of your questions are concerned, I'm afraid that I have to refer you to the FAQ here (http://cosmoquest.org/Moon_Mappers:_FAQ) (e.g. why you can't go back). Magnifying images is currently only possible by adjusting your browser's zoom (e.g. by pressing Ctrl and + in Firefox). Commenting images can be done on the forum in the corresponding subforum (use the "open image in new window" function to copy the image's URL). You can see how you're doing in the Gallery (http://cosmoquest.org/mappers/moon/gallery/). And perhaps the Surface Features Glossary (http://cosmoquest.org/Surface_Features_Glossary) is a useful resource for you.

[IreneAnt]

Hi JimNumn,

Welcome to CosmoQuest and MoonMappers.

Thank you so much for that wish list. We are currently working on some tutorial videos and we will definitely need to add some stuff to address your points 5 and 6!

As to point 7.... We don't actually have anyone going through all of your crater marks to confirm them. That would defeat the value of your work. Instead, we we consider a crater "confirmed" if a large number of people mark the same crater the same way. So, if some craters aren't confirmed, that probably just means that not enough people have looked at those images yet. So, in that respect, yes you are way ahead. :)

Cheers and thanks for all your work!

[astrostu]

And to respond to your second point, this is something that we're talking about for a future version, though it would still remain in the 450x450 pixel window and wouldn't give you any more pixels when "zooming in" -- it would just over-sample for perhaps more accurate marking.