Let's get organized
by trouille scientist, moderator, admin
I thought you might be having a similar experience as me upon returning to Quench Talk after all these months. I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed trying to find the posts I remember that contain interesting results and posts that contain important information about our sample selection.
So I hoped that if we created this thread to gather in one place links to all the important posts we should keep in mind as we move forward, that would be helpful for everyone.
With this in hand, it may be that we'll decide to move away from using Quench Talk. Depending on how many people are still involved, we may move to ~weekly google hangouts, direct emails, and assigning specific tasks to specific people. That may be a more efficient way to move forward.
this thread to gather in one place links to all the important posts we should keep in mind as we move forward, that would be helpful for everyone
- there are results from the zooites' classifications/clicks; we ended up using just two sets ('merger fraction' and asymmetry)
- we ran BPT diagrams, and classed objects accordingly
- perhaps most important: we decided to restrict ourselves to 0.02 < z < 0.10 AND Z brighter than -10
There were many other topics, but I think these are ones we thought should/might go into the paper. I'll rummage around later today, to see if there are any others. I'll also add links to the relevant threads, for each of the three above.
That may be a more efficient way to move forward.
I would much prefer that we use forms of communication other than Talk.
It's next to impossible to provide reliable links to individual posts; I will, instead, reference threads (and possibly point to particular pages within them).
there are results from the zooites' classifications/clicks; we ended up using just two sets ('merger fraction' and asymmetry)
Mass Dependent Merger Fraction (Control vs Post-quenched Sample) is a 9 page thread that contains (I hope!) all the key stuff about the first; despite its title (it contains posts on QC objects too) Asymmetrical Subset 2 (QS) is the equivalent for the second (it's only 3 pages long)
we ran BPT diagrams, and classed objects accordingly
"021020" catalogs: "the 1149" and "the 1196", with extra fields (BPT, ppo, ...) - this short thread contains the formulae used for 'BPT type' field, and discussion of them.
perhaps most important: we decided to restrict ourselves to 0.02 < z < 0.10 AND Z brighter than -10 
Clean "021020" galaxies: 11 April catalogs, comparisons, and discussion - basically all we need to do is agree on how to handle the ppos (potentially problematic objects). All other issues - changes in classification due to differences in Nvote, addressing 'missing values' (e.g. logmass), one-to-one association of QS and QC objects, ... - have been settled.
Dealing with Sample Selection Issues - this is a much longer thread, containing the background (etc) to our "021020" decision; the last page (2 pages?) has some relevant posts.
There are also several threads which discuss, directly or indirectly, what results we should focus on in our paper; this is, obviously, something to be considered in conjunction with the ideas (etc) in mlpeck's post upthread.
Potential Plots to Include in the Final Article is one such thread. The other (major) one seems to be Quench project: a proposal aimed at reviving and completing it.; at the bottom of page 4, there's this:
In no particular order, but starting with this thread (this is an eclectic mix, some you may consider as something other than 'results'):
- from ChrisMolloy: Asymmetrical
- one of mine (Jean Tate): What bias does the varying fraction of Eos - in the QS catalog - introduce?
- from jules: Mass Dependent Merger Fraction (Control vs Post-quenched Sample)
- nominated by zutopian: Potentially problematic sources in "the 778"
There's also a list of eight other possibilities; quite a mix! 😃
 this is one reason I do not wish to continue to use Talk: the text I quote contains the "less than" symbol, in its robust HTML form ( & l t ; ), remove the spaces, but when I quoted it, the role of that symbol as an HTML character re-appeared, and I had to reformat the quote to make the rest of this post visible. Aaargh!
 at least, I think so. It is probably worth taking some time to summarize what we've agreed on, and to distribute the agreed datasets
- from ChrisMolloy: Asymmetrical