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?"
Sure, it's good to have an objective of keeping people honest, but burdening
those who are honest with *this* excessive level of erroneous spots is just
plain silly given the potential technological sophistication of this global
system overall. Adding in the error detection needed is suitable and
appropriate for this amazing aggregated system.
I applaud those who are working to improve the quality of the RBN output and
to deliver meaningful & real spot data and to reduce the amount of easily
recognizable, filterable, and preventable errors.
Thank you, RBN engineers!
73,
Bob W5OV
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:25 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN
I'd rather have it pass along the errors then the click and shoot folk
that don't COPY what is sent get the dings.
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 7/16/2013 12:53 PM, Barry wrote:
> How would it filter out commonly miscopied calls such as LW3LPL and
> JH3CTQ (the latter being human error)?
> Barry W2UP
>
> On 7/16/2013 10:41, Hal Kennedy wrote:
>> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
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
|