I haven't tried this in a contest but see no reason why it wouldn't get
rid of the endless recurrence of bogus spots such as EK3LR so we don't
have to keep cleaning them out of the bandmap.
N1MM allows you to put such calls onto a black list. You can right
click the call in the bandmap and select the black list option. You can
also enter (or delete) them in a form accessible from the Packet Window
Tools. Either way they're gonzo.
Seems to me that as soon as you're bothered by the repetition of a bogus
call you just add it to the black list and you'll not see it anymore.
Not everyone uses N1MM, of course. If your fave logging program doesn't
have this functionality maybe you can get the authour to add it.
Even if it doesn't, if you connect to a CC Cluster and turn on Skimmer
spots you will see almost no busted Skimmer spots. The CC Cluster
software removes them.
So, if I've got this right, this particular problem has been solved.
Maybe I'm missing something here. If so, please tell me.
73. Jim VE7FO
On 2/21/2013 5:36 AM, Bob Naumann wrote:
> 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
>
>
On 2/21/2013 5:36 AM, Bob Naumann wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|