[Skimmertalk] Skimmer Tests during SS

[Pete Smith]

Could be, but normally it needs to actually see a "tag" with the callsign 
like CQ or Test.  Conceivably, "with" is defined by a period of time, so if 
the stations were closely enough zeroed that could happen.  I will ask 
Alex. and will do some experimenting during CQWW CW.

73, Pete

At 03:08 PM 11/15/2008, David Robbins K1TTT wrote:
>I am wondering... in ss it is relatively unique that you send your call as
>part of the exchange.  I wonder if skimmer was accidentally picking up on
>stations calling the one who was cqing?
>
>
>David Robbins K1TTT
>e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
>web: http://www.k1ttt.net
>AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dick Green WC1M [mailto:wc1m at msn.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 19:42
> > To: 'Pete Smith'; skimmertalk at contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [Skimmertalk] Skimmer Tests during SS
> >
> > Jim and I have been discussing his report offline. His results don't
> > correlate with mine in IARU CW, where I often got more spots for CQing
> > stations than I could keep up with, and accuracy was outstanding.
> >
> > While Pete is probably correct about the effect of SO2R time delays on
> > finding CQing stations, another reason for the low hit rate is that it's
> > quite common for stations CQing in SS to simply send something like "SS
> > <call sign> <call sign> SS". The words "CQ" and "TEST" are often omitted.
> > CW
> > Skimmer doesn't have SS-specific code, does it? If not, I'm sure it will
> > eventually... :-)
> >
> > I agree on using Paranoid mode. With the right SCP file, that would have
> > eliminated the non-USA calls, and I suspect it would have greatly reduced
> > the number of busted calls that got mangled into valid FCC calls.
> >
> > 73, Dick WC1M
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pete Smith [mailto:n4zr at contesting.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 6:44 AM
> > > To: skimmertalk at contesting.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Skimmertalk] Skimmer Tests during SS
> > >
> > > I have posted the full report at
> > > http://www.pvrc.org/~n4zr/K5QQ%20Skimmer%20Test%20-%202008%20SS.pdf
> > >
> > > His statistics are very interesting.  However, I'm a little skeptical
> > > about
> > > Jim's conclusion that I quoted below.  In my tests, if anything,
> > > Skimmer
> > > does not identify *enough* of the stations that are running.  It
> > > relies on
> > > markers in the stations' transmissions, such as QRZ, TEST,or CQ.  If a
> > > station is running on a frequency, just signing [call] TU or[call] UP,
> > > then
> > > Skimmer doesn't know that he is "CQ-ing."
> > >
> > > I suspect that part of the problem Jim encountered is due to SO2R
> > > stations
> > > CQing, and then taking a pretty long time to work someone they find on
> > > the
> > > second radio.  The issue with busted calls is real, of course, and
> > > many of
> > > them are going to be legitimate calls, because even in Aggressive mode
> > > Skimmer is relying on patterns rather than a positive list.  If you
> > > want to
> > > cut way down on the number of busted calls, switch to Paranoid, and
> > > make
> > > sure Skimmer is pointed to a current master.dta file.
> > >
> > > 73, Pete
> > >
> > >    At 05:36 PM 11/14/2008, Jim Baremore wrote:
> > > >I performed this evaluation at 8 different intervals during the
> > > contest and
> > > >did evaluations on 20, 40 and 80.  All total 359 spots were tested.
> > > Of
> > > >those, only 111 were the station CW Skimmer was indicated on the
> > > frequency.
> > > >30 were for a station whose callsign was close but which I judged
> > > Skimmer
> > > >had missed a dit or something and mangled it into another call.
> > > >Interestingly enough, the mangled call was still a valid FCC call.
> > > Finally,
> > > >218 spots were for stations no longer on the frequency.  Most likely
> > > they
> > > >were stations just worked by the station running the frequency.
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Skimmertalk mailing list
> > Skimmertalk at contesting.com
> > http://dayton.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/skimmertalk
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Skimmertalk mailing list
>Skimmertalk at contesting.com
>http://dayton.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/skimmertalk