S.A.A Telescope Questionnaire - beta 1

I think the idea behind the questionaire morphed from "what one needs to
know about telescopes", to "what one needs to know about themselves before
buying a telescope".

A FAQ should be comprised of real questions that are frequently asked about
equipment and what's important to know about equipment. However, a
questionaire is something completely different, especially when it is
targeted toward helping someone find out something helpful about themselves,
which they certainly don't need to make public. An accompanying FAQ could be
included with such a questionaire and written to discuss the pros and cons
of each piece of equipment in relation to some basic personality types. This
is not unlike the testing one does to determine, at least to some extent,
what career they might be best suited to pursue and be happy.

Example FAQ entries might be:

Typical blurbs on focal length, focal ratio, aperture, relationship of exit
pupil to brightness, and relationship of aperture to exit pupil and
magnification, followed by the more nitty gritty details of usability
including:

Mount Maintenance - In order from most frequently needing to least
frequently needing
1) Low cost Dobsonian
2) Low cost GEM w/stock tripod
3) ............
4) ............

OTA Maintenance - In order from most frequently needing to least frequently
needing:
1) Newtonian
2) Schmidt Newtonian
3) Schmidt Cassegrain
4) Maksutov Newtonian
5) Maksutov Cassegrain
6) Refractor

OTA Cooling - In order from most needed to least needed (for a given
aperture)
1) Maksutov Cassegrain
2) Maksutov Newtonian
3) Schmidt Cassegrain
4) Schmidt Newtonian
5) Newtonian
6) Refractor

OTA Dewing - In order from most needing prevention to least needing
prevention
1) SCT
2) SNT
3) MCT
4) MNT
5) ................

Eyepiece light throughput -
.............
............

Eyepiece field of view -
...................
..................

Eyepiece eye relief -
.............
.............

Eyepiece edge performance -
............
............


Anyway, that's what I'm thinking. Such a questionaire and FAQ _might_ be
more helpful to someone not only starting out, but to someone in process of
learning about equipment, and their own needs.
--
-Stephen Paul

"Jan Owen" wrote in message
news:iMxlb.72524$vj2.7139@fed1read06...
After reading a bunch of the responses to this thread, I can only conclude
that it's purpose is to:

Force the respondent to prove he or she is worthy of a new scope.
Make sure the person has the "right" reasons for wanting to buy a scope.
Make sure they can take a test which has NOTHING to do with buying a
scope.
Ensure someone understands the importance of owning a pair of binoculars.

If it's a questionnaire for the purpose of helping someone chose a scope,
it should be VERY short and to the point. And probably start out with
referring the person to the FAQ, which is the REAL source document, and
not a demographics questionnaire. or the Spanish Inquisition revisited.

John Steinberg wrote:
Spanish Inquisition, my ass. Let's stay in proportion.

Whoa! Whoa! Come on now, I think Mr. Owen was just inserting a comedic
barb without intent to injure.

Yes, I know, and if it had come after a legitimate suggestion of
better questions to ask, rather than "you poor deluded folks just
know as well as I do," I'd have laughed, too.

Don't make me get the comfy chair, people!

Yum, comfy chair.

Anyway, I've been following this thread and I'd like to make a proposal.

A proposal that, coming from me, might surprise some long-term s.a.a.
abusers, err, participants.

Instead of subjecting a newbie to a questionnaire (which BTW, isn't
necessarily a bad idea in and of itself) how about if we all just agree
to tell said newbie to buy a new, or even used, 6" to 8" Dob? If said
newbie cannot afford the price of admission for said instrument, the
collective response could be ``Save!.''

Gosh, an actual recommendation. Who woulda thunk it?

I now return my remaining time to the gentleman from Santa Monica and
ask the chair to strike my remarks from the Google record.

So noted.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
"Brian Tung" wrote in message
...
Jan Owen wrote:
After reading a bunch of the responses to this thread, I can only
conclude
that it's purpose is to:

Force the respondent to prove he or she is worthy of a new scope.
Make sure the person has the "right" reasons for wanting to buy a
scope.
Make sure they can take a test which has NOTHING to do with buying a
scope.
Ensure someone understands the importance of owning a pair of
binoculars.

No, I don't think that you can "only" conclude that.

Wrong. I can conclude anything I care to, as can you.


The reason I ask the question about binoculars is to determine whether
this person has any experience using optical instruments at all. Using
them isn't mandatory, but it does confer experience, and knowing about
that might be useful in figuring out what scope would be useful for
them.

I ask about observing with friends because GOTO scopes and tracking
scopes are more useful then. They keep the object in view without user
intervention.

I ask about what they're able to find because, again, GOTO scopes help
users who feel unsure about being able to find many things. I ask about
what they're more interested in--hunting or seeing--because that
priority
may determine whether the user is better served in having a small
non-GOTO
scope, or a large GOTO scope.

I really don't see how these are raised as barriers to buying a scope.
There are no "wrong" answers, and additional information for making a
recommendation is generated no matter how the user responds. It's not
as
though a "no" answer to any question means that a telescope will not be
recommended. You may have read it that way, but frankly, it would sure
be nice to give posters the benefit of the doubt until you find out
more.

If it's a questionnaire for the purpose of helping someone chose a
scope,
it should be VERY short and to the point. And probably start out with
referring the person to the FAQ, which is the REAL source document,
and
not a demographics questionnaire. or the Spanish Inquisition
revisited.

This is dismissive and, given the intent of the posts here, unwarranted.
I didn't see any suggestions from you as to what questions should be in
this "very short and to the point" questionnaire. I'd genuinely like to
hear what you have to suggest.

You didn't see anything else from me, because you picked this thread up at
midpoint and began your commentary from there. This thread started
several days ago, and the content was split for whatever reason from the
earlier origin and ended up back at the top of the stack, which is where
you came on board. This wasn't my only post on the thread; my position
was made earlier. I don't think I'm required to repeat it for you.


Spanish Inquisition, my ass.

Indeed.


Let's stay in proportion.

Incidentally, have you ever heard of Monty Python?


Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Jan Owen wrote:
Wrong. I can conclude anything I care to, as can you.

Sure--doesn't necessarily make it sensible, though. I'll check your
other posts on this thread.

Let's stay in proportion.

Incidentally, have you ever heard of Monty Python?

Sure. Why, are you aspiring?

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
"Bill Meyers" wrote in message
...
Rather, ask:
After having read the telescope buyers FAQ [give the URL}, what
additional
questions would you like to ask us about your own situation and needs?
Bill Meyers


Hi, Bill!

I think all that's necessary is exactly what you have above and nothing
more. My rationale for that is in the first installment of this thread
further back in the pack a few days...

Just can't get over the summer here. Yesterday made it the latest date in
the year ever over 100 degrees. And today extended that. This is the
hottest July and August ever on record (probably September, too, but I
haven't seen the hard date yet that supports that one), and the third
hottest year ever on record (the second hottest was last year)... And on
and on it goes...

Hello, Jan,
I would like very much to have the wisdom to know which few questions on a
very short questionnaire would suffice. But I don't have that wisdom. My
experience with questionnaires tells me that it would help me to know more
about the person's, interests, budget, and observing situation in order to
make a recommendation. This is not to deny that such a short valid
questionnaire is impossible, only that I can't do it and I have rarely seen
it done successfully in other fields.
I think it wise of Starlord to post a draft for comments by knowledgeable
people (such as SAA posters) This is simply good methodolgy..
The next step after that would be to pretest it on a sample drawn from
the population who will take the final questionnaire. It always amazes me
when I draw up what I think is a fine questionnaire, and find out from the
pretest sample how many obvious things I have missed and how much revision is
needed. I have never regretted doing a pretest, and I think most people
experienced in the area would consider a doing a pretest the Golden Rule of
questionnaire construction.
Hope the weather out in Arizona is as good as it presently is here. I
can't believe we are having such clear and balmy weather in late October.
Ciao,
Bill Meyers

Jan Owen wrote:

After reading a bunch of the responses to this thread, I can only conclude
that it's purpose is to:

Force the respondent to prove he or she is worthy of a new scope.
Make sure the person has the "right" reasons for wanting to buy a scope.
Make sure they can take a test which has NOTHING to do with buying a
scope.
Ensure someone understands the importance of owning a pair of binoculars.

If it's a questionnaire for the purpose of helping someone chose a scope,
it should be VERY short and to the point. And probably start out with
referring the person to the FAQ, which is the REAL source document, and
not a demographics questionnaire. or the Spanish Inquisition revisited.

--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
"Victor" wrote in message
...
I liked Bill Greer's questions a lot and just thought Question number 9
should be added (see below). More suggestions are welcome!

When we have 'consensus' on its contents, we should keep a copy of it
somewhere. So if a regular S.A.A poster sees someone with the normal
"Which telescope should I buy?" question, then he or she can reply with
the questionnaire.

Hopefully the original poster will go through the effort of answering it
and send it back to the newsgroup. Then we can unleash our informed
advice onto the poor soul! ;-)


QUESTIONNAIRE

Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability.
Your answers will greatly assist us in directing you to the right
telescope for your needs.

1) What price range are you considering? Would you be willing to
spend more in order to get the performance you desire?

2) What would you like to be able to see? What specific details
would you want to be able to see in those objects?

3) Would you eventually want to use this telescope for photography,
CCD imaging, or any other specialized purpose?

4) What is the nearest city/town to the area in which you plan on
using the telescope? How far from this city/town do you intend to set
up and use your new telescope?

5) If size and weight are important factors, what are your
approximate limitations?

6) Do you want the telescope now; or are you willing to wait for the
right telescope?

7) Are there any specific features or capabilities you think you
would want or not want in your new telescope?

8) Is there anything else that would be important for us to consider
in order to direct you to the right telescope?

9) In which country do you stay? Some equipment manufacturers may not
have distributors there.


--
25° 45' S
28° 12' E

--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
"Brian Tung" wrote in message
...
Jan Owen wrote:
Wrong. I can conclude anything I care to, as can you.

Sure--doesn't necessarily make it sensible, though. I'll check your
other posts on this thread.

Who's the judge of what's sensible?


Let's stay in proportion.

Incidentally, have you ever heard of Monty Python?

Sure. Why, are you aspiring?

Apparently you're familiar only in passing, or you would have recognized
the Spanish Inquisition connection.


Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Jan Owen wrote:
Sure--doesn't necessarily make it sensible, though. I'll check your
other posts on this thread.

Who's the judge of what's sensible?

Not a person. Plain logic, that's all. There were other consistent
conclusions than what you listed. If you saw more in the earlier part
of the thread that somehow restricted the plausible conclusions, maybe
I'll see it when I read the rest of the thread.

Incidentally, have you ever heard of Monty Python?

Sure. Why, are you aspiring?

Apparently you're familiar only in passing, or you would have recognized
the Spanish Inquisition connection.

I recognized it.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
"Brian Tung" wrote in message
...
Jan Owen wrote:
Sure--doesn't necessarily make it sensible, though. I'll check your
other posts on this thread.

Who's the judge of what's sensible?

Not a person. Plain logic, that's all. There were other consistent
conclusions than what you listed. If you saw more in the earlier part
of the thread that somehow restricted the plausible conclusions, maybe
I'll see it when I read the rest of the thread.

....or you won't... But if you don't, that doesn't mean I'm wrong and
you're right. You see, I'm not the judge of whether EITHER you or I am
correct. I can only give you my opinion. You seem to want to be in
charge of judgment. The real judge here, is the collective wisdom of the
whole group. Not you or me. What we say over time will indeed be judged.
But neither you nor me are the final judges. We just vote with our
opinions. Others accept them, or not, based on how they relate to them...


Incidentally, have you ever heard of Monty Python?

Sure. Why, are you aspiring?

Apparently you're familiar only in passing, or you would have
recognized
the Spanish Inquisition connection.

I recognized it.

Brian Tung

John Steinberg wrote:
Look, I don't want to be put in a position of defending someone else's
remarks, but I think the larger point about making a questionnaire so
detailed as to be potentially off-putting is a valid one. I suspect
many newbies, when asked, would simply say something like "I just want
to see some schtuff." I think a questionnaire may be presuppose they
actually know anything and that in itself could frighten folks away.

I agree. I didn't like the tone, nor the implication that making
experience a requirement was the intent of the questionnaire. I
really don't think that that's what was meant.

Gosh, an actual recommendation. Who woulda thunk it?

Sarcasm noted. I would ask the chair to strike that from the record
and suggest that the gentleman from Santa Monica is possibly having a
bad hair day or feeling a little bruised by the brusque manner in which
his contributions were handled.

I'm not sure Jan was talking about my contributions, actually. And I
don't mean to strike down your suggestion, which is quite a sensible
one. Not sure it's the best, but that's for debate to settle, as you
suggest.

Still looking for a second, I relinquish my final minutes to the first
gentleman or gentlelady who wishes to further pontificate.

I'm seconding.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt