Hey!
I'm voting for Ken as the one who has made the most sense out of this
thread...
73, Art W6KY
Kenneth E. Harker wrote:
> So, it's not good enough that others are altruistically doing your
> work for you, it's important that they do near-perfect work for you, and
> if they don't, we should "expose" them and start humiliating them in public?
>
> Did I get that right?
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:53:21AM -0500, Jim Idelson wrote:
>
>> Ok, Dave. This is great stuff. But, now that you have almost completely
>> eradicated malicious spotting from our world, you need a new challenge.
>>
>> Almost as detrimental as self-spotting, busted spotting is the next big
>> problem to deal with. Guys who can't copy and can't type should not be
>> passing their errors on to the rest of the world. So, how about some
>> post-contest comparisons of spotted calls against the SCP database? For
>> those who have posted 50 or more spots during the contest, what percent
>> appear to be busted calls? Listed from highest percent to lowest, that would
>> be a good way to expose the worst and the best!
>>
>> Going a step further, when we see SO2R repeatedly spotted as S02R on or near
>> 14.027, can we figure out who first posted the bad call, and then identify
>> those who in all likelihood blindly picked up the spot and propagated it
>> further?
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Jim Idelson K1IR
>> email k1ir at designet.com
>> web http://www.k1ir.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|