I just fired up Galaxy Zoo today, following the introduction of the new data sets from the DECaLS survey of the Cerro Telolo Interamerican Observatory in Chile.

Today I nominate the galaxy AGZ000apsw for #dailyzoo:

This one is especially eye-catching because of the apparent massive size, the well-defined spiral arms, and the gigantic ring around the periphery.

My general take on the general "Pluto: Planet, or no Planet" problem.

In general, the views that Pluto should be counted/classified as a planet are almost always (if not always!) emotional based, and there by also highly bias and generally none scientific in initial reasoning (cherry picking, scientific related or not, is not considered scientific science)

The view that Pluto should not be counted as a planet is mainly/initially derived from the fact that: If you do call/classify Pluto as a planet AND you also like to be consisted in a scientific way. You run into the problem that there are more (a lot, known and still unknown) objects out there that would also fall into the same planet classification (which btw would degrade the scientific usefulness of the used planet classification, and/or make the planet definition highly convoluted.).

ie: Pluto in my view is a classic case where one has to decide on what one finds more important. Potential scientific clarity & consistency or, I guess, emotional resistance to changes in preconceived ideas/views.

Note: Just because its nice, and from a scientific point of view useful, to capture nature is well defined boxes/definitions/classifications. Nature will do its own thing, and will not care about trowing stuff towards us that falls in-between our used boxes. (What to pick, on new data, has always been somewhat of a human problem: Do we Adjust(without major lingering) or Resist(for as long as possible)).

Hi there! I am very pleased that the Project Builder allows one to choose what completeness statistic to use for the project stats page. For my project, "classification count" is my metric of choice for expressing progress. Unfortunately, it appears that the main status bar on the project homepage always uses retirement count as it's completeness statistic.

It would be great if the status bar statistic respected the setting adopted for the default workflow (but I see how this could be not well defined for the case of multiple workflows and non-universal metric selections), or was a separate selectable option.

@malcolma1
The completeness bar on the home page is by retirement - the percent of subjects retired of all active subjects (all those in subject sets linked to an active workflow). The home page completeness bar function can not be changed by the project owner. Since it is by retirement, it does not begin to move until substantial numbers of classifications have been recorded and the first subjects begin to retire. The higher the retirement limit the slower the bar moves in the early stages. For example with a retirement limit of 10 there needs to be (on average ) about 60% of the classifications done to get the bar to move the first 10%, while if the retirement limit is 3, only 26% of the classifications needed to complete all subject will retire about 10% of them.

The more detailed stats behind the home page can be set to show either completeness by retirement or by classifications by the project owner, but be warned some changes to the active subject sets, or any other reduction in the number of active subjects, any change in the retirement limit, or having early retirement rules in effect may cause the classification stats for the workflow to be in error for the life of the workflow.

This is a known short-coming with the completeness stats but it is not a particularly easy problem to resolve - even the concept of completeness is not well defined for a project that presents new data sets as time passes. The project owner can have some control by wisely choosing which workflows to show on the detailed page, which metric those use, and which subject sets are linked to the workflows (ie do you leave completed subject sets active - so they still show on the home completeness, or deactivate them as they complete so they no longer are in the stats?)

The "Tango Bar" Hypothesis
I have always been fascinated by galactic bars, particularly the ones where the arms or ring connect sharply with the straight central bar and especially the few examples I have seen where the arms seem to end at a point beyond the bar. Trying to comprehend examples of what might cause such a sharp change of direction at this enormous scale, I realized a situation where two massive objects come within range and begin to co-orbit each other around a central point (perhaps amidst considerable dust, gas and other matter). The pair could be super massive or ultra monstrous black holes; maybe an object in some way similar to a neutron star; perhaps sort of huge, dense globular clusters; or an unknown massive, primordial object not generally visible on its own. Maybe they organize surrounding matter, maybe they begin to shed their own cache under graviational influence or Hawking radiation as they engage in their co-orbit and mop up their space creating a pure vacuum around them. A tidal bar formed between them allows matter also to flow into the center, pooling around their Lagrange point. The pair co-orbits like dolphins shepherding schools of fish into a huge central ball.

The idea seemed a bit far-fetched but I came across a "residual" image that ChristineM posted in Subject 60258290 back in 2021 showing a bright central blob orbited by two other blobs in a yin-yang arrangement. One was shrouded in bright dust or gas while its counterpart had a "black hole" in its center. I do understand a "black hole" in astronomical imaging could mean a complete absense of something or excessive brightness flooding out the sensor. The proposed Project may simply reveal a strange phenomenon of some kind of equally opposing entities created by the galactic bar and disc (sort of like tiny twisters orbitting a large tornado) or it may just reveal that I know nothing about "residual" images.

Classifications
Below are the five classes of "Tango Bars" which I have used to organize a small collection of Galaxy Zoo subjects into (Alpha, Beta, Delta, Eta and just "x"). I will update my collection with hashtags and images shortly. Clicking on hashtags below will show you the subjects I have completed so far. I will reply when I have finished.

Alpha Tango Bar
This is the primary class of "Tango Bars" showing distinct objects at the intersection of the galactic bar & the arms/ring. They equally oppose each other as they co-orbit the galactic core. At least one should be a "black hole" and its counterpart may be a sort of "yin-yang" bright or shrouded blob. The "residual" image can be large or small, crisp or grainy.
#tango-bar #tango-bar-alpha

Beta Tango Bar
This is a secondary class of "Tango Bars" showing distinct objects anywhere in the galactic disc so long as they equally oppose each other as they co-orbit the galactic core. At least one should be a "black hole" and its counterpart may be a sort of "yin-yang" bright or shrouded blob. The "residual" image can be large or small, crisp or grainy.
#tango-bar #tango-bar-beta

Delta Tango Bar
Typical "residual" view of a small to medium, grainy but pretty well defined image of a barred galaxy with equal, bright, opposing blobs co-orbiting the galactic core. Nothing necessarily spectaular about this class, just typical examples of potentially good candidates that citizen scientists might find on Galaxy Zoo.
#tango-bar #tango-bar-delta

Eta Tango Bar
Typical "residual" view of a small, grainy image of a barred galaxy with equal, faint, opposing blobs co-orbiting the galactic core. Not necessarily a superb candidate but a good example of the types of challenges citizen scientists can face in Galaxy Zoo.
#tango-bar #tango-bar-eta

Other Candidates (x)
Miscellaneous candidates that may have little chance of fitting in but contain any of the "Tango Bar" characteristics in the "residual" image. It is worth remembering it is just as important to find examples that can challenge the "Tango Bar" hypothesis.
#tango-bar #tango-bar-x

Just tested "DR8" residuals on three of my best examples and it reveals more "black hole" blobs throughout the discs potentially negating the hypothesis. Though, the primary "alpha" example still holds well with two identical, distinct "black holes" at the intersection of the central bar and inner ring with only one extra, much less defined blob appearing in the ring. The pair is so well defined, perhaps they are artificial. See residual image and a couple links below:

Galaxy Zoo:
https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/zookeeper/galaxy-zoo/talk/subjects/26440654
Survey Viewer:
https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer?ra=33.0820&dec=-0.8115&layer=ls-dr8-south-resid&zoom=16