Summary of AAVSO survey results

By Al Holm

Last winter we invited you to participate in a survey to tell us about your interests and concerns in the world of variable star observing. We are delighted to have received responses from 261 individuals. One hundred twenty-two of the forms were submitted electronically via the web interface. Thank you for taking the time and effort to do this.

The results of your input have been discussed by the Council and will be used to improve the operation of the AAVSO.

Your suggestions with regard to meetings have already been put into use. At the 88th Annual Meeting, held on Oct. 28–31 in Hyannis, MA, extra time was given to the scientific papers presented by members, and a special open discussion session was held to encourage member discussions. We were unable to implement the most popular suggestion, namely to "hold it where I live," but we did lower costs by moving it from Cambridge to Cape Cod. Last July, we implemented another suggestion by holding a joint meeting with the ASP and the RASC.

The three areas that received the most positive feedback for future AAVSO effort were to recommend stars to observe, to teach observers about variable star astronomy, and to make data available on-line. This spring, Headquarters has made major advances in making light curves available on-line. We hope that you have tried out the new form, and have used it to compare your observations to those of other observers. In the near future, Headquarters will develop lists of stars that need more observations. By spring 2000, you should find recommended stars suitable for your equipment and experience published on our web site.

The complete results from the survey, including the many written comments, are 46 pages long, too lengthy to print in the Newsletter. I have selected to publish here what I think are the most interesting statistical results and summaries of written comments. You can receive a copy of the full report from Headquarters, by sending a self-addressed envelope with stamps for 4.5 oz to AAVSO Survey, 25 Birch Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, or by downloading it from the AAVSO web site (179K from www.aavso.org).

The results here are grouped into four sections: our profile, opinions on current AAVSO services and publications, recommendations on priorities, and volunteer summary.

Part I. Our Profile

This part of the report summarizes responses on who we are and our relationships with astronomy and the AAVSO. Compare your own circumstances with those reported here.

A. Who are we?

What are our backgrounds? What are our interests in variable stars? These statistics, based on 261 forms, are similar to what they were during the survey conducted by the AAVSO in 1994. [Note: In each table, "No. Obs." = number of individual observers; tables should be read across, rather than down columns.]

One-hundred and two of us (39% of the respondents) have published a paper about variable stars.

You may have noticed that 'female' and 'male' do not add up to 100%. This is not a new scientific discovery, but due to some Web browsers, including mine, which could not check more than one item for questions where multiple selections were allowed. As a result, there is some under-counting in those questions with multiple selection items, here and in later sections.

B. How old are we?

Statistics are based on the 260 forms for which there were answers to this item. The biggest change since 1994 is that there are more of us in the 41-61 age range, 56% now versus 43% then. (Some of the responses reported here for under 16 years may be false. The on-line form used that age group as the default, so if someone did not select an age range, it was automatically entered as under 16.)

C. How long have we been AAVSO members?

Percentages are based on 260 responses. The 1994 percentages are similar.

D. What do we observe?

Percentages are based on 238 responses.

E. What resources do we have for astronomy?

This section summarizes both our observational facilities and the access we have to computers. Statistics for the kind of observing facilities are based on 251 forms.

The statistics for computer access and use are based on the complete set of 261 survey forms. In 1994, 73% said they had a home computer and 41% a network connection, so the numbers have increased slightly. Still, more than 1/3 of us lack a network connection. The AAVSO must remember these people by providing alternate access to resources, such as charts, light curves, and lists of stars to observe, that are placed on-line.

F. What are our experiences and problems as observers?

While 18% of us have under 5 years of experience, the average observer who responded to this question has observed for over 20 years. One member has 63 years of experience.

The average observer observes 7 times a month. We are optimistic. Of the 240 observers who responded to this part of the survey, 130 (54%) are observing more now than in the past, and 188 (78%) expect to observe more in the future than now.

The median time to reach our usual observing site is 2 minutes and the average is 16 minutes (183 responses). Similarly, the median time to reach our favorite observing site is 25 minutes and the average is 145 minutes (167 responses). The large difference between median and mean times are due to a small number of observers who travel very far, for example, to Chile.

Two-hundred and forty-eight people identified the main problems they had when observing.

Ninety-three people responded to the question, "What could help you enjoy observing more?" The most common responses were for darker skies, more time to observe, better weather, and a better location. Better or larger equipment and a backyard observatory were also popular choices. Among items more within the AAVSO's scope were charts in different formats, contact with other VSOers, guidance and/or feedback, and new or improved software.

G. What other astronomical organizations do you belong to?

Eighty-two percent of us (215 people) said we belong to at least one other organization. The most common are the American Astronomical Society with 21%, the Astronomical Society of the Pacific also with 21%, and the International Dark Sky Association with 18%. When the AAVSO has joint meetings with other organizations, these would be good partners.

Other organizations strongly represented in the AAVSO family are ALPO (12%), RASC (10%), and IAPPP (10%). The best-represented local clubs are the Tucson Amateur Astronomy Association (4 members), the Madrid Astronomical Association M1 (3), and the Grupo Astronomico Silos of Zaragoza, Spain (3).*

Part II. Opinions on current AAVSO services and publications

In all, 247 people assigned a value to one or more of AAVSO services and publications. In general, there was a wide range of opinions. Every item was ranked as "excellent" by at least 25% of us, but nearly every item also received some votes for "poor".

The best-liked service, AAVSO's new web site, was rated by 191 people, 59% of whom called it excellent, and 2% poor. Spring meetings (57% excellent) and annual meetings (55% excellent) also received very positive ratings, but only about 60 people could offer an opinion on them. Other services with highly positive ratings were the on-line charts (55% excellent), e-mail discussion group (54% excellent), and on-line light curves (52% excellent).

The least-liked service, the KSOLO software program, received a 17% poor rating and a 27% excellent rating. The ZAP and TS software programs also fared poorly with 15% and 13% poorratings respectively. A few written comments indicated that the programs were hard to use or that they didn't work with the operating system being used by the observer. The only other service that received a poor rating above 10% was the mentor program, which received a 15% poor rating from the 39 people who expressed an opinion about it.

Among the publications, the best-liked were the Monographs with a 74% excellent rating. Other high-scoring publications were the Observed Minimum Timings of Eclipsing Binaries, with 69% excellent; Alert Notices, with 68% excellent; the News Flash, with 68% excellent; the PEP Newsletter, with 65% excellent; and the Journal of the AAVSO, with 63% excellent. The SID Technical Bulletin got a 70% excellent rating, but paradoxically also got a 10% poor rating.

The least-liked publication was the Observer's Manual, which had a 13% poor rating and 25% excellent rating. The CCD Views committee newsletter received an 8% poor rating and a 25% excellent rating.

Part III. Recommendations on where the AAVSO should target its resources

229 of us offered opinions on one or more items listed under "Where should the AAVSO target its resources?", and 154 rated ideas for improving meetings.

A. Priorities for activities

You were asked to provide input on "where should the AAVSO target its resources" by giving 19 possible activities high priority, medium priority, low priority, or no value. Your reflections on priorities for the future are important because we live in an era of breathtaking change. The AAVSO, too, must continue to change and improve, and it needs your support to do so.

The top and bottom 5 vote-getters are reported below. Please note that the number of members and observers who consider even the lowest rated activity a high priority for AAVSO action outnumber by a factor of 3 to 1 those who think it has no value.

The most popular suggestion for greater effort by Headquarters was to recommend stars to observe. Recommending stars to observe was rated by 209 people, 65% of whom gave it a high priority. Other popular suggestions were to teach observers about variable star astronomy (high priority for 64% of 204 people), making data available on-line (high priority for 73% of 196 people), providing feedback to observers (high priority for 67% of 198 people), and developing educational materials (high priority for 58% of 199 people).

The least popular suggestion was for the AAVSO to become involved with automated telescopes. Only 22% of the 185 people who rated this item gave it a high priority, while 7% said it had no value at all to the organization. Other items that ranked among the five lowest were international meetings (22% high priority and 4% no value), maintaining a software clearinghouse (30% high priority and 3% no value), on-line discussion group (34% high priority and 3% no value—surprisingly, in view of the earlier high approval of the e-mail discussion group), and involving members in data analysis (29% high priority and 2% no value).

Fifty-four people provided additional comments and suggestions on priorities. Among the specific suggestions given are straighten out chart sequences; provide objective information on the value and future of visual observations of variable stars; guide observers to under-observed stars, perhaps by publishing the number of observations taken on each star annually; and encourage new observers by organizing experienced members to give them feedback, by improving the 'starter package' with examples and information about mentors, and by recognizing when they make 1000 observations.

One activity to which members gave a high priority was to teach observers about variable star astronomy. A related question had asked, "What topics in astronomy and variable stars would you like to learn more about?". Many wanted to learn about techniques that could help them observe and analyze the data. There were 22 responses for information on observing techniques. CCD techniques accounted for half of them. Others wanted PEP techniques, the supernova search program, the nova search program, general observing, remote observing, spectroscopy, and how to create an observing program.

There were also 18 responses for information on analysis techniques. Data analysis and period analysis techniques took the lion's share with 7 each. Others wanted to learn about data evaluation and orbit determination for eclipsing binaries.

Most people wanted to learn more about the phenomena and astrophysics associated with the objects they observed. Among these the largest group was 18 responses asking for information on all types of variable stars. When people asked about specific types of objects, cataclysmic variables led with 11 responses, followed by supernovae and the sun and solar physics with 7 each. Every individual type of variable had at least one interested person. People were also interested in the history of variable star observing, what professionals learn from AAVSO data, and other variable star topics.

People also expressed interest in learning about topics of general astronomy, ranging from cosmology to stellar structure and interiors.

B. Meetings

Much effort is involved in preparing for meetings, and attendance has been low lately. Therefore, we asked your opinion on five options for improving meetings.

The suggestion to eliminate the spring meeting met with a resounding 'no' from 59% of the 127 people who expressed an opinion. Even among people who have not attended a meeting in the past 10 years, only 9% said 'yes' to eliminating it, although 42% said 'maybe'. Moving the fall meeting from Cambridge was pretty much split between 'yes' and 'no', but 'maybe' received the largest vote with 47%. Holding joint meetings with other groups received support with 51% 'yes' and 36% 'maybe'. Holding scientific paper sessions on both Friday and Saturday also was positively received with 47% 'yes' and 42% 'maybe'. Shortening the meetings was not popular; 58% said 'no'.

One hundred twenty people provided answers to "What would it take to get you to come to a meeting?". These responses gave a lot of information about why people cannot attend meetings. Fifty-eight gave location, distance, or problems traveling as a reason for not attending. Twenty-seven cited cost as the main factor. Nineteen cited time or schedule problems. Some of the positive suggestions that were given include: hold more workshops on topics of interest to observers; have more professional speakers; find ways to involve members attending their first meeting and loners; give longer advance notice of when meetings will be held; and help members in organizing carpools for travel to meetings. Visits to AAVSO Headquarters are a plus.

Part IV. Summary of volunteer responses

One-hundred thirty members said they would be willing to take part in one or more of the activities and responsibilities listed, which ranged from accepting nomination to the Council to helping schools using Hands-On Astrophysics.

I appreciate the support you have shown for the goals and future of the organization. In areas where the AAVSO currently has on-going programs (e.g., Council, mentoring, refereeing JAAVSO papers, sky-checking charts, and HOA) your name has been given to the appropriate individual or committee. The AAVSO currently is not organized to carry out some of these activities (e.g., analyzing data, recruiting, summarizing variable star papers from professional publications), but your willingness to help has been noted and will be used in future decisions.

Conclusion

We are a diverse lot. Still, the survey has shown that there are areas in which there is a clear consensus that an activity or improvement is important to our membership and observers. This information will help Headquarters and the Council in their decisions. Furthermore, it has been a pleasure to read comments from you like "I've been meaning to write a love-letter to you about the Atlas", "Sorry these are mainly moans—generally I think the enthusiasm and 'go' of AAVSO is terrific," and "I salute the AAVSO for all its efforts in creating its new Web Page Site!!!"

Thank you again for contributing to this survey, and Clear Skies!—Al Holm

Sincere thanks to Al Holm for all his hard work in compiling, analyzing, and summarizing these survey results!!