[RTTY] RTTY Skimmer

[Pete Smith N4ZR]

Sorry Don, but I do not know.  I'm copying Alex, VE3NEA, the author of 
RTTY Skimmer Server.  He can probably answer this, and he also needs to 
know about the need to add DN to the list of CQ tagging keywords.

73, Pete N4ZR
Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
<http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
out the Reverse Beacon Network at
<http://reversebeacon.net>, now
spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.

On 3/23/2016 10:20 PM, Don Hill AA5AU wrote:
> We've heard some good things in this thread. We heard from, I think it was
> Dave K6LL, who believes the RTTY skimmer spots are getting better. And we've
> heard from Pete, N4ZR, saying that by using "aggressive" validation, we get
> better spot accuracy with only a small reduction in the number of spots.
> This all seems good but we need all RTTY skimmer ops to use this aggressive
> setting.
>
> I shied away from using RTTY skimmer spots after trying to use them on a
> couple of occasions last year only to get slowed down by chasing spots of
> S&P stations instead of run stations. I am going to try using skimmer spots
> again during EA RTTY next weekend to see what improvements have been made. I
> do realize the potential upside of RTTY skimmer spots.
>
> I do have one question. I understand that one of the biggest issues is that
> RTTY contesters place "CQ" at the end of their CQ message (and it's for good
> reason). Most of us use a single space at the end of that message. Would it
> help if everyone who places CQ at the end of their CQ message, used two
> spaces instead of one after that trailing "CQ"? If so, I'll start doing that
> and advocate that others do it as well. Would it make a difference? Would we
> get less S&P stations being spotted by RTTY skimmer?
>
> 73, Don AA5AU
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith N4ZR
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 5:45 AM
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
>
> Thanks for calling this out, Ian.  I checked, and discovered that DF4UE is
> running "minimal" validation.  I'm sure this is an oversight on his part,
> and have just sent an e-mail to him suggesting he adopt the recommended RBN
> standards of "normal" validation on CW and "aggressive"
> on RTTY. Recent tests confirmed that "aggressive" validation on RTTY results
> in usefully better spot accuracy with only a small reduction in the raw
> number of spots.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
> <http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
> out the Reverse Beacon Network at
> <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
> spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
> For spots, please use your favorite
> "retail" DX cluster.
>
> On 3/23/2016 4:28 AM, Ian White wrote:
>> K6LL wrote:
>>> In my experience, the VE3NEA RTTY Skimmers are much improved lately
>>> on spotting stations that are actually calling CQ.  I always connect
>>> to a CC-Cluster node, using CC-user Software, which seamlessly feeds
>>> N1MM Logger.  I think the CC Clusters do some filtering to validate
>>> spots from multiple skimmers.  My usual nodes are VE7CC-1 or AE5E-2.
>>>
>>> RTTY Skimmers have definitely come of age in the past 12 months.
>>> Many thanks to all those who are feeding the RBN, both CW and RTTY!
>> The quality of RTTY skimmer spots does continue to improve, but there
>> is still a significant 'leakage' of spots for stations that are
>> replying to a CQ.
>>
>> Although "CQ" can appear at both the beginning and end of a text
>> string, it still should not be too difficult to parse an ambiguous
>> fragment like "GM3W CQ K6LL". One of the two spaces in that string
>> will be a genuine, synchronous RTTY <space> character; but the other
>> will just be an asynchronous gap between two different stations.
>>
>> And above all: if there is any doubt, the skimmer should *not* spot!
>> It isn't a race between different skimmers, and there's sure to be
>> another CQ coming along shortly.
>>
>> Another problem last weekend was that one specific skimmer (DF4UE-#)
>> was spotting consistently incorrect callsigns.
>>
>>
>> 73 from Ian GM3SEK (@GM3W)
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dave
>>> Hachadorian
>>> Sent: 22 March 2016 23:03
>>> To: reflector RTTY
>>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
>>>
>>> In my experience, the VE3NEA RTTY Skimmers are much improved lately
>>> on spotting stations that are actually calling CQ.  I always connect
>>> to a CC-Cluster node, using CC-user Software, which seamlessly feeds
>>> N1MM Logger.  I think the CC Clusters do some filtering to validate
>>> spots from multiple skimmers.  My usual nodes are VE7CC-1 or AE5E-2.
>>>
>>> RTTY Skimmers have definitely come of age in the past 12 months.
>>> Many thanks to all those who are feeding the RBN, both CW and RTTY!
>>>
>>> Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
>>> Yuma, AZ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:  pcooper
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:31 AM
>>> To: Al Kozakiewicz
>>> Cc: rtty at contesting.com
>>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
>>>
>>> Al AB2ZY and the group,
>>>
>>> I have local access to a skimmer cluster as well as a normal cluster.
>>> Both run simultaneously here in the shack 24/7. Looking at the
>>> skimmer cluster, I repeatedly see spots for stations that are
>>> responding to a CQ call, rather than calling CQ themselves.
>>>
>>> I have tried using the skimmer cluster in a contest, and that simply
>>> clogs up the bandmap with loads of spots that aren't calling CQ.
>>> I know the skimmer clusters are supposed to be intelligent and only
>>> spots calls who are sending CQ, but I see far more spots for those
>>> that aren't.
>>>
>>> Where cluster access is allowed in a contest, I will use the normal
>>> cluster, as I mostly use it to gauge whether another band is open, or
>>> worth trying. If there is some juicy DX spotted, I may well try for
>>> them, depending on the situation, but generally, if that juicy DX has
>>> just been spotted, it's usually pointless trying, as loads of others
>>> will already be there.
>>> This was evident during the BARTG contest at the weekend, as I came
>>> across FP/KV1J calling CQ on 20m, so I tried to get in, but he had a
>>> mini pile-up going. I did try a couple of times more, but then he got
>>> spotted, and I gave up, as it just got silly, with callers shouting
>>> over each other and the exchange in progress.
>>> Happily came across him again later, and got in first shout. It was
>>> similar with HP3/VY2SS.
>>>
>>> That's just my own view of things.....
>>>
>>> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>