[Skimmertalk] [CC-User] Busted FT8 skimmer spots

[Dave Pascoe]

I am equally annoyed by the bad spots and have scaled my
CWSL_DIGI instances to run at Normal vs. Deep. We'll see if it makes a
difference. The number of these false decodes seems to scale with Skimmer
volume.

Dave KM3T


On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 9:01 PM Wes Cosand <wes.cosand at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Folks:
>
> Lee, VE7CC, could comment more authoritatively on this than I can but let
> me try.
>
> The three of us whom Robert cites use CWSL_Digi 0.88 to decode FT8 and
> FT4.  The author, Alex Ranaldi, gives us a variable with three levels to
> control the "depth" of the decoding by the WSJT engine.  The default is set
> for "3", which I understand calls for the WSJT "Deep" sensitivity.
>
> Ever since beginning to skim FT8 I have used "Deep" decoding and some
> percentage of the resulting data is in error.  But in response to Robert's
> suggestion, I've lowered this variable to "2" and let's see if it makes a
> significant difference in the error rate.  I'm not certain whether it is
> simple for VE7CC to give us any data on busted WSJT calls, or not.
>
> I've been averaging about 10,000 PSKReporter decodes each day.  It will be
> interesting to see how that changes.
>
> But it seems to me that there is a more fundamental issue here.  There
> appear to be two distinct user communities for FT8 skimming with different
> expectations: the PSK Reporter community and those DXers who have used
> telnet DX Spot for many years.
>
> I often receive appreciative emails from the PSK Reporter community who
> have found the FT8 skimming useful to their hobby.  Some of the emails from
> DXers who have used the CW data from the RBN for many years expect error
> rates for FT8 which I don't know how to achieve.  At times after
> particularly exercised emails from fellow RBN users, I've simply turned off
> FT8 posting to the RBN system.  And then a digital contest comes around and
> I turn it on again.
>
> I am at a loss to know what the best course for the hobby truly is but I'm
> willing to experiment.
>
> Wes WZ7I
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 9:25 PM Pete Smith N4ZR <pete.n4zr at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Good point, Robert, though I don't know what the people you cite are
>> using (DEEP vs NORMAL).
>>
>> 73, Pete N4ZR
>>
>> On 12/16/2024 7:04 PM, Robert W5AJ via groups.io wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is not issue with CC - but skimmers that are feeding into the DX
>> spots.
>> Today's examples include:   WZ7I-# spotting 9E8VB, KM3T-# spotting P7VUM,
>> WC2L-# spotting P63NHS
>> None good.   For me and I suspect others, these show up in the ALARM page!
>> These do tend to come more from certain clusters/skimmers.
>> I've locked out (best possible) some skimmers from displaying in my CC
>> Cluster with the use of "Keywords" setting and inserting their skimmer
>> callsigns.
>> This stops both good and false decodes from these folks.
>>
>> FINDINGS:   WSJT, earlier versions do, although rare, false decode when
>> set in "DEEP" mode.   Seems skimmers should use the "NORMAL" setting there
>> to stop false decodes.
>> Hopefully some of the skimmers monitor this group and will pay
>> attention....
>>
>> 73 Robert W5AJ
>> _._,_._,_
>> ------------------------------
>> Groups.io Links:
>>
>> You receive all messages sent to this group.
>>
>> View/Reply Online (#10606) <https://groups.io/g/CC-User/message/10606> | Reply
>> to Group
>> <CC-User at groups.io?subject=Re:%20%5BCC-User%5D%20Busted%20FT8%20skimmer%20spots>
>> | Reply to Sender
>> <woodr90 at gmail.com?subject=Private:%20Re:%20%5BCC-User%5D%20Busted%20FT8%20skimmer%20spots>
>> | Mute This Topic <https://groups.io/mt/110155254/515779> | New Topic
>> <https://groups.io/g/CC-User/post>
>> Your Subscription <https://groups.io/g/CC-User/editsub/515779> | Contact
>> Group Owner <CC-User+owner at groups.io> | Unsubscribe
>> <https://groups.io/g/CC-User/leave/2748000/515779/1726033341/xyzzy> [
>> pete.n4zr at gmail.com]
>> _._,_._,_
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Skimmertalk mailing list
>> Skimmertalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/skimmertalk
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Skimmertalk mailing list
> Skimmertalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/skimmertalk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/skimmertalk/attachments/20241218/8cf72b96/attachment-0001.html>