This reminds me of something I read a couple of years ago about an earth-orbit satellite collecting O-zone data.. when it encountered the 'hole' it ended up throwing away most of the data since it failed its 'common sense' test.
Wish I could find the link.
In the case of an altimeter it makes sense to be aggressive with the 'common-sense' component to throw out bad data. But with other things like temperature, you wouldn't want to throw out data that could look wrong, but could actually be caused by some unknown phenomenon (like say, superheated gas pockets on mars) as that's exactly the type of weird stuff you'd be interested in.
I guess the problem is distinguishing [data that differs greatly from what was expected] and [data from a sensor malfunctions]
In the case of an altimeter it makes sense to be aggressive with the 'common-sense' component to throw out bad data. But with other things like temperature, you wouldn't want to throw out data that could look wrong, but could actually be caused by some unknown phenomenon (like say, superheated gas pockets on mars) as that's exactly the type of weird stuff you'd be interested in.
I guess the problem is distinguishing [data that differs greatly from what was expected] and [data from a sensor malfunctions]