At 12:22 PM 11/1/00 -0600, Kurszewski Chad-WCK005 wrote:
>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.
Don't the spots disappear when you work the station, or ignored if already
worked, like in CT? If so, having the hour-old spot show up after you
worked it from the "real" spot should mean that it doesn't even get added
to the window.
And in the other case, where you didn't work it, if the hour-old spot is
the first one you got (just sat down, just turned on the computer,
whatever), there's still some chance the station may still be there.
I agree that having the timestamp would be *helpful* but I don't think it's
*necessary*.
- Jim
--
Jim Reisert AD1C <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>
http://www.ad1c.com/
--
WWW: http://www.writelog.com/
Submissions: writelog@contesting.com
Administrative requests: writelog-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-writelog@contesting.com
|