+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Tasks (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-28.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich tasks (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-32.html)
+---- Forum: Positions we can agree upon (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-53.html)
+----- Forum: Approved blocks (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-54.html)
+----- Thread: [Imagery] There are 324 stars in Q20 (/thread-2155.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: There are 324 stars in Q20 - Koen G - 29-10-2017
Haha, calls the nymph barrels trashcans, like they are cookie monsters
I think I know what went wrong. Probably when he counted the signs, they had turned into a dashed list without him realizing. Like that, an extra dash was added to each line. Subsequently, the format was lost in the blog post, resulting in correct signs but incorrect counts.
RE: There are 324 stars in Q20 - MarcoP - 29-10-2017
(29-10-2017, 04:53 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hello Anton,
Good point, I'll edit my post to replace "red stars" with "stars to which red paint has been applied", and further add a distinction between the fully red ones and those which only have red in their center.
The dot vs fully red distinction is certainly interesting, but is it relevant for the vote here?
I guess we are only voting for the 324 total?
In my opinion, the idea of having a separate discussion before starting a poll made sense. Also subjects which appear trivial turn out not to be, when one starts collecting the different observations of different people....
RE: There are 324 stars in Q20 - Anton - 29-10-2017
Quote:I guess we are only voting for the 324 total?
As I understood VViews's intentions, we are voting for the whole complete statement in his title post. There's no problem to do it either way, though. Also, I think that the more information is brought forward, the better, so why not vote on breakdowns as well.
About the poll, yes, I think we had such practice in the past to conduct some discussion at first and only then to bring forth the poll. Here's the case where not much discussion would have been anticipated, but nonetheless it arose
.
RE: There are 324 stars in Q20 - VViews - 31-10-2017
I posted the counts in the Counting Things thread almost a year ago, and they were discussed there.
I had assumed that only a few minor refinements would be needed here, and that has been the case. I am grateful to those of you who brought corrections to these counts.
The question in the poll is "Do you agree with the statements in this post": the plural is intended to refer to all the statements in the OP: total count and breakdown.
Are you guys saying that you would like a separate poll for each statement in the OP?
It seems really unnecessary to me to do a poll for each count of stars on each page, especially when hardly anyone is participating in the polls anyway.
RE: There are 324 stars in Q20 - MarcoP - 31-10-2017
(31-10-2017, 06:24 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I posted the counts in the Counting Things thread almost a year ago, and they were discussed there.
I had assumed that only a few minor refinements would be needed here, and that has been the case. I am grateful to those of you who brought corrections to these counts.
The question in the poll is "Do you agree with the statements in this post": the plural is intended to refer to all the statements in the OP: total count and breakdown.
Are you guys saying that you would like a separate poll for each statement in the OP?
It seems really unnecessary to me to do a poll for each count of stars on each page, especially when hardly anyone is participating in the polls anyway.
Hi VViews,
my observation was about Antons's suggestion to split red-dot stars from fully-red stars. I agree with his suggestion, but people already voted, so adding counts for the split to the original post doesn't seem correct. Probably, an additional post will be needed.
Of course, when you point out that very few people participate you are absolutely right: the a big problem. I guess this also depends on the fact that, in order to meaningfully vote, one has to fully duplicate your work (it's the only way to check the numbers). Many people find this kind of activity boring and possibly useless.
On my part, I am grateful to all those who contribute to the "positions we can agree upon": I find this a good way to move forward and to build some common ground. I hope I will soon find the time to count the big-plant pages in the other thread.
RE: There are 324 stars in Q20 - davidjackson - 31-10-2017
My effort to double check your numbers led me astray. I've created a new thread to discuss this so as not to hi-jack this thread.
However, I would caution that "coloured in vs not coloured in" aren't the end-all of the types of stars. We have stars with washed out middles, which could be a faded colour wash; and stars with a dot in the centre.
RE: There are 324 stars in Q20 - Anton - 31-10-2017
Yes that's definitely not an end-all, but that does not prevent us from voting for certain partial counts.
I just checked the red stars, and my count is the same as VViews's.
BTW, the poll should have been open vote, but this time all votes are unanimous anyway.
RE: There are 324 stars in Q20 - VViews - 31-10-2017
Hi MarcoP,
I understand what you mean. I didn't worry about whether people had already voted or not, because people can change their vote if the OP becomes something they don't approve of anymore.
But you are right, and in future, I will add the polls to these at a later stage.
davidjackson,
I agree. I hope that before the end of the week I'll have time to add a couple more counts about Q20: dotted stars, tailed stars, and perhaps also the more subtle faded yellow wash stars.