CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Feedback on 160m Test Log Analyzer...

To: "Minnesota Wireless Association" <mwa@w0aa.org>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Feedback on 160m Test Log Analyzer...
From: "Robert Chudek - K0RC" <k0rc@pclink.com>
Reply-to: Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc@pclink.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:03:33 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Hello Contesters,

I added a feature to the ARRL 160m Log Analyzer and would like some feedback 
regarding the workbook performance.

I added a new worksheet for each log. They list the first 100 callsigns found 
in your log for each ARRL/RAC Section. For example, if you worked 5 stations in 
Alabama, this new worksheet will display their callsigns on the Alabama row. 
You will see each Section is a row on this report. The callsigns appear in the 
order you worked them, left to right.

It was necessary to create a VBA macro to reduce the complexity of the formulas 
needed to mine this data. You will see a warning message whether to enable 
macros when you open the workbook. Answer yes, otherwise the new worksheets 
will not be processed.

The feedback I would like is when you import your log(s) is the length of time 
to process these new reports acceptable? Second, are the first 100 callsigns 
adequate for this report? Could there be less? Should there be more?

Here's the link to the 160m Test workbook for download. It's a 6.3 Mb file so 
it might take some time to download it. Consider this a "beta" version. It has 
a short name to signify its status.

http://tinyurl.com/67qymp

Thanks!

73 de Bob  - KØRC in MN
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>