Shane,
The RBN system is not the "system of record" for contest adjudication.
Thank goodness for that.
W5OV
>
>
> One of my main concerns, as mentioned in my original post, is that several
> skimmers interpreted K0ZR as K1ZR thus making appear as if was operating
> on Sunday. If I had been operating on the same band at the same time as
> K0ZR would I be flagged for duel CQing on the same band? I appreciate
> the skimmer technology and have great respect for those responsible for
> it's development.  From a selfish standpoint I love being spotted and
> can deal with the massive influx of zero beaters as long I can keep the
> rate up.  My concern is related more to how the RBN data is used (if at
> all) by the contest organizers when auditing certain aspects of an
> entrants operation to help crack down on dishonest participants.  With
> human induced cluster spots it's more acceptable to discount a bad spot
> due to someone improperly copying the call and/or fat fingering the
> entry. With the skimmer, one may assume that if it detected callsign
> than it must be a more probable spot. I think we need to take
> a closer look at the way in which the spots are represented such as an
> accuracy or probability index. I really don't know what the right
> answer is....many of you donate your valuable time and talent to the
> contesting community and many of us tend to take what you have developed
> for granted and provide negative feedback without proposing a solution.Â
> I certainly hope that stations using RBN data take the time to validate a
> spot by copying the callsign before logging the qso, however I'm certain
> this isn't happening as frequently as it should. I'm sure that
> several stations logged K0ZR as K1ZR last Sunday, and if I had actually
> been active, running on the band, I may have been passed over by a
> station that logged my call sign earlier when they had actually worked
> K0ZR from a skimmer spot.Â
>
> Â
>
> I'm curious to know what percentage of cluster spots represent skimmer vs
> manually inputted during a 48 hour DX contest. Does anyone have those
> metrics?
>
> Â
>
> -Shane
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Â
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
>
>
> From: "Michael Adams" <mda@n1en.org>
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 12:31:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer accuracy...
>
> I wonder if there's a way to do that now, with the information already
> being provided.
>
> You have multiple skimmers reporting one or two callsigns at a given
> frequency in a short period of time. Â Each skimmer provides information
> about s/n and speed.
>
> Rather than have the skimmers opine on the confidence of their
> information,
> have the loggers/spot collection software parse that data to elect from
> incoming skimmer spots at a given frequency, within a certain period of
> time. Â Use some function based on s/n ratios reported and code speed to
> weight the incoming spots. Â Best score wins.
>
> Granted, a unique filter is probably sufficient to block the bad
> spots....but it sounds like a fun bit of logic to attempt.
>
> --
> *Michael D. Adams* (N1EN)
> Poquonock, Connecticut | mda@n1en.org
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Jack Haverty. <k3fiv@arrl.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> If the Skimmers could produce spots that contained not only a callsign
>> but
>> also a "confidence", consumers further down the line (e.g., contest
>> programs displaying spots) could filter those spots based on confidence
>> -
>> e.g., only display spots that are high confidence.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|