[Skimmertalk] Number in suffix

[Bob Wilson, N6TV]

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:31 AM N4ZR <n4zr at comcast.net> wrote:

>  If a majority of nodes worldwide use DXSpider, and DXSpider doesn't block
> weird formats, then it would follow that a majority of node users will see
> the 8N3 spots, whether they come from RBN nodes or other spotters.
>
They will not come very often from RBN nodes if the patt3ch.lst file is not
updated on the server, or we all update our private copies.

> The Skimmer Server code doesn't *preclude* spotting stations that do not
> conform with a pattern in the pattern file, it just requires more
> repetitions in the decoder channel before accepting it as a callsign.  Ten
> years ago, I worked with Alex to gin up and test the matrix of possible
> callsign formats and required repetitions.
>
In the past we have shown that callsigns that do not match any pattern in
the file will be spotted far less often.

> I just looked on the RBN website, and while 8G3G20 hasn't been spotted,
> there are loads of spots of 8N324A, a call structure that is not currently
> covered by the pattern file either.
>
First, the callsign is 8N3G2O (not 8G3, and the last letter is "oh" not
"zero" I think) .  It is being incorrectly spotted as 3G2O/3 per Dai's
message.

http://reversebeacon.net/dxsd1/dxsd1.php?f=0&c=3g2o/3&t=dx

Perhaps because that is because the closest pattern that matches is:

  3G2@

and the "8N3" is being miscoded as "/3".

As for 8N324A, perhaps those JA nodes have updated their private copies of
patt3ch.lst.  Or perhaps this "preferred" pattern (+) is considered a match:

+ 8N3@@@

73,
Bob, N6TV

>