> >It certainly would be an EXCELLENT addition to include the time
> >of the spot (not the arrival time, but the timestamp of the spot)
> >in the "Packet Spots" window so one could quickly delete the ancient
> >spots.
>
> Wouldn't it just be easier to sort the spots by their timestamp, rather
> than by the time they arrived at your computer?
>
> If an older spot comes in because of a long-delayed loop, and there is
> already the same station in the list with a later timestamp, just ignore it.
>
Sure, that sorting would be great except you still need the
timestamp displayed. You could have an empty "Packet
Spots" window when a "new" spot shows up, which could
be very old (1-2 hrs). Since there isn't a new spot
of the same station, you would still get notified of
the ancient, useless spot.
Yes, one could argue that it isn't WL's problem. It's the
fault of us getting very old spots and it should be stopped
at the source. But I've been involved with Multi-ops for
over 10 years, and this is a perpetual problem. I've been
able to weed out the problem (on other logging programs) by
looking at the timestamp and deleting the old ones.
Here's an idea, how about not even displaying (in the bandmap,
nor the Packet Spots window) if the timestamp of the spot (not
the arrival time) is more than XX minutes older than the current
time? That would certainly be a new feature, not seen on other
logging programs.
Chad WE9V
--
WWW: http://www.writelog.com/
Submissions: writelog@contesting.com
Administrative requests: writelog-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-writelog@contesting.com
|