- 21. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1)
- Author: "Rick Kiessig" <kiessig@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:57:14 +1200
- I want a raw feed because I would like to do my own filtering, possibly with different algorithms than the server uses. I think it's fine to have some filtering done at the server, but there are also
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00182.html (10,615 bytes)
- 22. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1)
- Author: "Bob Naumann" <W5OV@W5OV.COM>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 07:49:30 -0500
- There is no effort underway that would reject any valid calls AFAIK. This is a total non-issue. The focus is on removing easily identifiable BUSTED calls that are repeatedly spotted. For example, HA3
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00188.html (17,316 bytes)
- 23. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1)
- Author: "Marijan Miletic, S56A" <s56a@bit.si>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:37:31 +0200
- Rick, ZL2HAM wrote: My Skimmer often hears stations only once that aren't heard by any other Skimmers. We got several local CW Skimmers in small S5 but I preffer unfiltered richer RBN spots. Poor sum
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00190.html (8,579 bytes)
- 24. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1)
- Author: Joe <nss@mwt.net>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 08:35:41 -0500
- I am curious, Has there been and studies comparing the error rates between the RBN spots and "Human" made spots? There MUST be a human error rate out there too. Who makes more errors? Joe WB9SBD Sig
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00194.html (9,481 bytes)
- 25. Re: [CQ-Contest] Error free RBN (score: 1)
- Author: Steve <steve@nr4m.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:23:06 +0000
- On 7/16/2013 18:03, Tom Osborne wrote: I think the errors weed out the guys who are using RBN and not claiming 'assisted.' But, at the same time, those of us who are truly in the classes where you ca
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-07/msg00218.html (10,580 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu