Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Error\s+free\s+RBN\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Error\s+free\s+RBN\s*$/: 25 ]

Total 25 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: Hal Kennedy <halken@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:41:20 -0400; 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, bu; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00142.html (7,738 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: Barry <w2up@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:53:42 -0600; How would it filter out commonly miscopied calls such as LW3LPL and JH3CTQ (the latter being human error)? Barry W2UP As a usually-assisted operator, one of my discriminators, just as in unassisted,; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00143.html (8,913 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@frontier.com>; Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:03:35 -0700; 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 lo; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00144.html (8,507 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: Joe <nss@mwt.net>; Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:24:50 -0500; 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.id; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00145.html (9,772 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: "Bob Naumann" <W5OV@W5OV.COM>; Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:10:27 -0500; 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 conte; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00150.html (11,885 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:40:49 -0400; I am comfortable with both the level of "sanity checks" done in the raw RBN stream, and in the more-highly-processed-filtered streams of downstream aggregators. Any spot information has to be evaluat; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00151.html (8,544 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: "Jack Haverty." <k3fiv@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:37:44 -0700; 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; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00154.html (10,008 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: w5ov@w5ov.com; Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:47:38 -0500; 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 pro; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00155.html (11,608 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:51:02 -0600; 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"; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00158.html (9,531 bytes)
10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: "Jack Haverty." <k3fiv@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:51:15 -0700; Bob, I totally agree that getting the RBN to send a perfect stream of data is the right solution. That may however be a very hard problem to solve, filtering out all "bad" spots while not filtering o; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00162.html (14,399 bytes)
11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:00:18 -0400; The real question is, *where* in the system - at the individual Aggregators (1 per Skimmer), at the RBN database server, at the RBN telnet server(s), or at the user's local Telnet server? I tend to a; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00164.html (13,027 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: "Martin , LU5DX" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>; Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 22:14:10 -0300; At the RBN database server seems to be the right choice. There is where the highest volume of data resides. I'm pretty sure the RBDMS being used gives all the robustness needed. No noticeable delays; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00167.html (16,096 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:38:27 -0400; 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 c; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00168.html (13,093 bytes)
14. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: kd4d@comcast.net; Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:25:28 +0000 (UTC); Hi Pete: We DEFINITELY want the ability to get an unprocessed stream (raw feed). This looks like a very valuable option for RBN users. Thanks and 73, Mark, KD4D The real question is, *where* in the s; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00173.html (14,797 bytes)
15. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 08:00:03 -0400; Hi Bob - sometimes I wish that e-mail had a better "tone of voice" indicator than those darned smileys. Iam not offended at all. I just wanted to point out that in the interim, there are tools out th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00174.html (15,905 bytes)
16. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: "Bob Naumann" <W5OV@W5OV.COM>; Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 06:47:46 -0500; 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; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00175.html (15,585 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: Barry <w2up@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:45:12 -0600; Why would you want a raw feed? What kind of additional info do bad calls give you? Barry W2UP We DEFINITELY want the ability to get an unprocessed stream (raw feed). This looks like a very valuable o; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00178.html (14,417 bytes)
18. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: Mark Bailey <kd4d@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 20:56:48 -0400; Hi Barry: I do my own filtering. 狢 want to minimize rejection of valid calls. 73, Mark Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone -- Original message -- From: Barry <w2up@comcast.net> Date: 7/1; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00179.html (16,345 bytes)
19. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: "Paolo, IK3QAR" <ik3qar@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:47:19 +0200; Hi Barry, i tend to agree with Mark about the choice not to enable the CT1BOH algorithm, for two reasons: - A "little pistol" station (like I am), when propagation isn't wide open (e.g. on 10 and 15m; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00180.html (16,743 bytes)
20. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1): Author: Mark <n2qt@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:56:39 -0400; No processing would of course be needed for 6m or where there is a lack of multiple skimmers, like perhaps with rtty skimmers which are also handled,by the RBN. Of course it would be easy to exclude; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00181.html (17,601 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]