[RTTY] Re: [WriteLog] WL bug

[WA9ALS - John]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "K4SB" <k4sb at earthlink.net>
To: <writelog at contesting.com>; "RTTY" <rtty at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: [WriteLog] WL bug


>
> > I do have to admit that the RTTY callsign database is a mess - sorry.
> > Perhaps we erred in starting over again.  I actually got so frustrated
> > with the lack of known good RTTY callsigns that I stopped in the middle
> > of the contest, took the recent database file and added every RTTY log
> > I had for the last 3 years.  THEN, nearly all callsigns highlighted.  hi
> > 73, Don AA5AU
>
> Well, my first thought is I can generate a database which has every
> conceivable call in the world in it. Of course, it would be useless
> because of the size.

Maybe every conceivable call would be a problem, but how much problem is
size really?  I used to think the old one was sort of silly since it
undoubtedly had a lot of unused calls, and I thought it might be better to
make my own database with Cabrillo tools using even just my own logs from
several years.  However, I didn't seem to have any problems using the old
larger database, even with my old 166 MHz Gateway - it seemed that the calls
highlighted almost instantly.  Thus it seems to me that, within reason, the
size of the file must not really matter.

It seems like a file made of 4-5 top contesters' logs would be good enough,
or even one made from our own logs of 4-5 years contesting?  Anything else
seems like the effort is way out of proportion to saving us from clicking an
unhighlighted callsign instead of just hitting the INSERT key.  (I know, it
also allows WL to pick a call out of a line of muck, but again, is that
worth the massive effort of making the database "perfect", if there even is
such a thing.)  BTW, I DO appreciate Ed's efforts.  What I don't understand
is why we can't talk about these issues and still be nice.  73 - John,
WA9ALS