Pete,
I have to presume that you didn't read my previous note.
I'm fully in support of the RBN error checking initiative underway by VE7CC
et al. Great work!
My slight exaggeration of the underlying problem was to make the point that
the problem indeed needs to be and can easily be solved.
There seems to be somewhat of a gap in understanding of what the problem is
by some apparently casual users, and what its impact is to those who are at
minimum semi-serious about operating and seeking to take advantage of the
RBN.
All of my commentary is in support of the error checking initiative. A+++!
I'm very encouraged and pleased by the early projections and look forward to
a much less stressful time of operating due to a greatly reduced # of busted
calls.
73,
W5OV
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Pete Smith N4ZR
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 8:38 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN
Not quite fair, Bob - consider that the RBN is over 100 individual
nodes, many of which are copying the same station. It may be entirely
blameless, or it may be running the end and beginning of the call
together (see LW3LPL) or committing other sending errors. In my
experience, using a simple Unique >1 filter as ARC6 and VE7CC do removes
roughly 95 percent of the busted spots. We will do better than that,
but in the meantime...
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
On 7/17/2013 4:47 PM, w5ov@w5ov.com wrote:
> Jack,
>
> That would be OK if the busted spots would stop coming in. Think of the
> wasted bandwidth around the globe that results from this problem. Adding
> to the processing burden of my local logging program is not the answer
> when it can be done in the RBN system itself and totally eliminate the
> problem.
>
> You have to remember a couple of things:
>
> 1) is that these are busted callsigns. They are copied wrong by the
> skimmer systems. Just because they happen to be wrong, does not mean that
> they might not also be a real callsign so a "blacklist" will not work.
>
> 2) is that the RBN is not like the human packet network where you could
> send a "TALK" message to someone sending out busted spots and tell them to
> stop. The RBN cannot be told to stop making mistakes - and it
> continuously repeats the same errors over and over and over and over and
> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
>
> Get the point?
>
> Error correction in the RBN is the correct solution.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
>> Me too - another casual contester.
>>
>> A simple enhancement of the logging program(s) you use might help a lot
>> with those serious operators' problem. Suppose you could have a command
>> to
>> tell your logger "treat this call as if I worked it", so it would never
>> appear again as a spot on your screen.
>>
>> In N1MM, for example, there is a "remove selected spot" menu item now to
>> get rid of a spot on the bandmap. A similar item "Remove selected spot
>> and
>> never consider that callsign again" would stop the "over and over and
over
>> again" problem.
>>
>> The loggers could even have a file, similar to the ones we use today as a
>> "whitelist" of known contest calls, but containing a "blacklist" of known
>> bad calls. The loggers would simply read such a file and then ignore any
>> spots for those calls.
>>
>> It's good to always improve the accuracy of the data feed, but there are
>> other techniques that might be very helpful too...
>>
>> 73,
>> /Jack de K3FIV
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Bob Naumann <W5OV@w5ov.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For the more "casual" contest operator (of which I'm one - most of the
>>> time), and for the day-to-day DXer, the errors admittedly don't present
>>> much
>>> of a problem.
>>>
>>> The problem comes in a major DX contest, when you're a serious operator,
>>> and
>>> during the last 24 to 36 hours of the contest you've already worked most
>>> everything that is unique (multiplier-wise) on the band(s). As a
>>> result,
>>> your logging program is no longer alerting you to the stuff you've
>>> already
>>> worked (the real callsigns). Guess what you do see? A preponderance of
>>> RBN
>>> errors! It has been at a level that is simply unacceptable. Most of
>>> these
>>> are not "off by one" errors either. The real problem is that they never
>>> stop. The same errors are propagated over and over and over and over
>>> again.
>>> It becomes quite unsettling after a while. "When will this stop?"
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|