On 12/2/2011 5:10 AM, jpescatore@aol.com wrote:
> Pete - first, thanks to you and all the others that do all the heavy lifting
> that got RBN up and running and keep it going. This year I went assisted in
> both CQ WW CW and ARRL SS CW and had a blast using RBN as my only spotting
> feed.
>
>
> It reminds me of the early years of Packet Cluster and I think there are a
> lot of lessons to be learned from what grew out of that and I think it would
> be great to early on try to make sure the RBN doesn't grow up to have the
> problems of today's global DX cluster. So, some suggestions along that vein:
>
>
> 1. Have some standards of operation for skimmers that connect and get
> aggregated. Right now it is small enough and friendly enough that "rogue"
> skimmers are not really a problem, but that is certainly coming as it gets
> easier for more people to run more skimmers. If nothing else, some way for
> consumers of RBN feeds to know which skimmers *are* adhering to recommended
> practices and letting us set filters to only consume spots from those that do.
Skimmers simply copy what is going on at the time decoding CW. I am not
sure how we could have a rogue skimmer.
>
> 2. I tend to be on N1EU's side that more filtering of obviously bogus spots
> is better but I know there are probably just as many on the side of "just
> give me everything and I'll sort it out." I work in Internet security and
> "false positives" are killers - I'd would rather have fewer false positives
> at the expense of an increase in "false negatives" (missed spots).
When I see a spot on N1MM I have no clue if it is a skimmer spot or a
man made spot. Both manage to mangle calls. This is where the operator
is inserted into the equation to eliminate the errors. Are you asking
for a pushbutton system where you can simply go up and down the bands
and work every spot and not have to worry about if it was J6M or J7M?
>
>
> 3. I think there may already be something like this, but I think there is the
> need for a "robot exclusion protocol" (such as exists on the WWW for web
> spiders/crawlers) to voluntarily agree not to encourage spots on certain
> segments or frequencies, like say the JT65 frequency or some emergency nets,
> etc. I don't believe anyone *owns* any frequency, but as contesters it is
> better if we try to be semi-decent neighbors and dumping a skimmer feeding
> frenzy on the QRPers is not all that friendly...
Nobody owns any frequencies so there is no need to create such a list.
Who is running emergency nets that really handle emergency traffic on
CW? Skimmers copy what is sent over a bandwidth. What you do with the
data is up to you. If you want to filter out what you deem as RTTY
segments or JT65 or Fists etc that is your prerogative.
>
>
> 4. Similarly, a "don't spot me" list might be a good thing. Per the comments
> on various forums, a lot of casual ops in rare locations are not wild about
> the chaos that results from a spot. If they would prefer not to be spotted
> and there was a mechanism to support that, so much the better.
>
This defeats the purpose of the network. It copies all calls. The only
issues we saw at J6M were when humans in Europe or Russia spotted us.
Apparently many clusters in Europe are not tied into the RBN system. If
they were they were the demand would be spread out over the period. Is
there a need for manual spotting of stations that already have a huge
pileup?
With RBN and calling CQ you are effectively self spotting yourself.
Should this now be allowed with other modes?
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|