First of all, I suspect there are far more than 400 errors out of 1 million
spots. The % is definitely far higher than .04%.
I did my time with this error-prone RBN by clearing the bad spots from the
bandmap again and again this past weekend.
I have no desire to invest more time in it to count them up now. (I
downloaded the files, and they're too big ~34meg total for both days).
Second, why is everyone so defensive about this RBN?
It makes many of the same errors over, and over, and over, and over! Why
defend it and pretend that it does not?
It makes many repeated errors - this is a fact. I lived it. I know.
The packet spotting network quality was better and it had less errors when
the packet system was driven by human input only. I lived that too and I
know.
Sure, there were spot errors, but they did not happen over and over and over
for the whole contest!
Were things missed that the skimmer/RBN system does not?
Of course - and that's not the point.
The benefit of the skimmer/RBN is obvious.
The problem is that there's way too much bad stuff that comes along with the
good.
Put some energy into fixing it instead of minimizing the problems!
Please!
W5OV
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Guy
Olinger K2AV
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:32 PM
To: Michael Adams
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Summarizing the Skimmer Accuracy Thread
Hmm. A little attention to the math. Looking at the spot counts in their
analysis app, there's something in the magnitude of a million spots over
the weekend. 400 errors through the process out of 1,000,000 spots is
0.04%. Your city drinking water should be so good.
And the RBN folks ARE actually working on ways to improve that 0.04%
Leave 'em alone. They're doing great. And giving away the spots for free,
a gift.
73,
Guy, K2AV
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Michael Adams <mda@n1en.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:13 PM, <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > If the 20 EK1LZ spots were the only errors, that would not be so bad - I
> > guess... but that's not the case.
> >
>
> It's probably worth noting that in all 20 cases, the EK1LZ spots appear to
> have been unique, coming from only one skimmer. (Different skimmers at
> different times, but only one at a time.)
>
> --
> *Michael D. Adams* (N1EN)
> Poquonock, Connecticut | mda@n1en.org
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|