Good post Hal. I agree
I think the errors weed out the guys who are using RBN and not claiming
'assisted.'
I would imagine the log checkers get a big kick out of all the guys who put
7D8Z in their logs over and over again and claim 'non-assisted.'
RBN errors should make it really easy to see who's cheating. 73
Tom W7WHY
I may be by myself all alone out in the woods with this opinion, but I
like the RBN having errors. The "image problem" is probably something
worth filtering out to the degree technically possible, but the rest? I
like the errors.
As a usually-assisted operator, one of my discriminators, just as in
unassisted, is experience. I know A LOT of the calls by heart, I can do
"off-by-one" in my head. I know how strong particular stations and
stations in general should be at any given hour, and who has clix, who
goes slow and who goes fast, and I also know how RBN errors tend to look
in real-time and over time. This allows me to mentally filter the
errors out.
I'd like to continue to see operators have to actually copy the callsign
and exchange to be sure, and to keep their UBN under control - which
goes away with error-free data. I like the errors, they benefit those
who have put in the work and and are willing to copy it all, when others
can't or won't. I also think (or hope?) the errors encourage others to
pick up their game.
With the best of intentions....
73,
Hal
N4GG
_______________________________________________
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
|