I'm not sure there *are* any significant choke points in the telnet
cluster network - my impression was/is that it is multi-path,
uncontrolled, and essentially unstoppable. Not true?
73, Pete N4ZR
The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at www.conteststations.com
The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
On 7/14/2010 9:59 AM, John Geiger wrote:
> Would it be possible for the individuals who control the main spotting
> clusters to devise a filter of sorts for the next WRTC, where any spot for a
> WRTC team call doesn't make it onto the cluster. I don't know much about the
> software workings of a cluster, but it seems like something could be done
> like that. Maybe set it up so close "busts" also wouldn't show up.
>
> It might also be interesting in the next WRTC to still do it field day style,
> but give each time something like a FT450 and a dipole to use. See what the
> ops could do with a little pistol setup. That would really bring out the
> operating skill in them.
>
> 73s John AA5JG
>
> --- On Tue, 7/13/10, Paul O'Kane<pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:
>
>
>> From: Paul O'Kane<pokane@ei5di.com>
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / Results
>> /Overspottinganditsimpact
>> To: "CQ CONTEST"<cq-contest@contesting.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 7:16 PM
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Radio K0HB"<kzerohb@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>> There was no impact, Rob. LU5DX has decided to
>>>
>> create
>>
>>> a controversy where none exists,
>>>
>> No impact - where the number of spots for each team
>> varied from 1 to 121? Of course there was an impact.
>> Look at the results. A single additional spot for
>> ES5TV/ES2RR could have made them winners. One fewer
>> spot for RW1AC/RA1AIP could have dropped them to
>> second place.
>>
>> Spotting is the most significant unregulated factor in
>> preventing WRTC being a true measure of the operating
>> skills of each team.
>>
>> Can it be regulated? If not, we will have the same
>> controversy next time.
>>
>> 73,
>> Paul EI5DI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|