[Skimmertalk] Skimmer Callsign Validation

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> My reason for posting the report was not to argue for/againsat 
> one point of view or another in the tiresome rules debate, but 
> to blow Alex's horn, something that he appears reluctant to do 
> for himself.  The guy is good!

Yes, Alex does some good stuff.  My reason for the reply was to 
point out that Skimmer is not a human operator.  Skimmer has its 
good and bad but it should not be considered assistance any more 
(or less) that any other software or hardware.  

Skimmer is not a threat to become a "robo-operator" and in spite 
of the quantity of information the quality is significantly less 
than that from a modestly competent human operator. 
 
> My only point was that the error rate is now comparable to packet, 
> at least at the normal and aggressive validation levels.  At 
> the paranoid level, since a positive match with a super check 
> partial file is required, Skimmer may even be less prone to 
> total busts.

Don't get me started on third party SCP files - which are input 
form another person - but I think with SCP verification Skimmer 
is even less likely to turn up the unique multiplier than cluster.  



> -----Original Message-----
> From: skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 3:18 PM
> To: Joe Subich, W4TV; skimmertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [Skimmertalk] Skimmer Callsign Validation
> 
> 
> Hi Joe - You're entirely correct as to the origin of most of the 
> errors.  Because of the way Skimmer decodes, it does not yet have the 
> ability to take it to the next level, as a human op would do. 
>  On the other 
> hand, if you compare its output with the stream of spots 
> coming from a 
> cluster node, I suspect that much the same sort of errors 
> would be seen in 
> both.  My only point was that the error rate is now 
> comparable to packet, 
> at least at the normal and aggressive validation levels.  At 
> the paranoid 
> level, since a positive match with a super check partial file 
> is required, 
> Skimmer may even be less prone to total busts.
> 
> My reason for posting the report was not to argue 
> for/againsat one point of 
> view or another in the tiresome rules debate, but to blow 
> Alex's horn, 
> something that he appears reluctant to do for himself.  The 
> guy is good!
> 
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> 
> 
> 
> At 01:41 PM 6/29/2008, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > > There is a Microsoft Excel file at 
> > > www.pvrc.org/~n4zr/Summary_of_All_Calls_6-27-08.xls that 
> summarizes 
> > > the results.  Callsigns color-coded red in the left-most 
> column were 
> > > not found in QRZ.com but were accepted by one or more of the 
> > > validation levels above minimal - at least some may be 
> good, because 
> > > QRZ is not perfectly timely or inclusive.  Similarly, call-signs 
> > > colored yellow in that column were found in QRZ but were not 
> > > validated by any level above minimal (I call them false 
> negatives).
> >
> >Inspection of the Excel file shows another thing that a 
> human ear would 
> >probably detect that skimmer is missing ...
> >
> >In several cases skimmer is copying/validating both a valid 
> call and a 
> >busted variation (bad fist?) ...
> >
> >9A60AEEST is most likely a version of "9A60A TEST"
> >
> >UX7UNST is almost certainly "UX7U TEST"
> >
> >DR1T is most likely a busted DR1I
> >
> >EA3FA is most likely a busted EA3FP
> >
> >S52OW is most likely a busted S52OP
> >
> >YU1LI is probably YU1LA
> >
> >YU9DXT is probably YU9DX
> >
> >S56M/S55M/S56MS are probably all the same station with
> >     "fist" issues.
> >
> >SP4NS is probably SP4Z
> >
> >WM0M is most likely a busted OM0M
> >
> >ER3NX/ER4DX, HB9FAZ/HB9NAZ, UA4FEA/UA4FEL/UA4FER and
> >     SP3DPG/SP3LPG/SP3LPM are probably "busted" versions of
> >     the same call. Anyone who regularly showed up with
> >     "unstable calls" should be concerned about their fist,
> >     keyer settings (weight), RF into the keyer or "stutter"
> >     from LPT/DTR keying.
> >
> >LY2PX/LY2PXL, LY7A/LY7GEA and OK5R/OK5RO are probably cases
> >    of "CT spacing" or "stutter"
> >
> >None of this should be unexpected after listening to the 
> quality of CW 
> >in many contests.  It simply shows that "skimmer" is only another 
> >receiver or tool to identify POTENTIAL DX and not DX Alerting 
> >assistance like another operator.
> >
> >The operator still needs to copy the other station/exchange 
> and use the 
> >tool for what it is and not as a crutch.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Skimmertalk mailing list
> Skimmertalk at contesting.com 
> http://dayton.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/skimmertalk