Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: LoTW Selection Algorithm

Expand Messages
  • Dave AA6YQ
    The data posted don t show a wonderful retention rate, which might lead one to reconsider the priority of improving usability. Whether usability of the award
    Message 1 of 68 , Sep 6 3:27 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      The data posted don't show a wonderful retention rate, which might lead one to reconsider the priority of improving usability. Whether usability of the award interface is a significant factor can't be determined from the data. At present, it's moot because the development resources are occupied elsewhere.
       
      I've created a survey to determine where development resources should be focused when they become available:
       
       
      I'll post the results here next Sunday.
       
         73,
       
              Dave, AA6YQ
       
      -----Original Message-----
      From: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Peter Laws
      Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 5:31 PM
      To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: LoTW Selection Algorithm

       

      And, of those, how many have submitted credits for an award and how
      many haven't bothered?

      We'll likely never know.

      On 2010-09-06, Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> wrote:

      >>>>AA6YQ comments below
      >
      > -----Original
      Message-----
      > From:
      href="mailto:ARRL-LOTW%40yahoogroups.com">ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
      > Of GERRY
      > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 5:07 PM
      >
      To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
      >
      Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: LoTW Selection Algorithm
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > The other 35,4xx users of LoTW
      don't seem to have too much of a problem
      > adapting to the minor user
      issues.
      >
      >>>>As of this morning, there were 36495
      callsigns listed on HB9BZA's
      > "reported LotW participants" list. Of
      these, only 15221 have uploaded QSOs
      > to LotW during the past 6 months,
      and only 19338 have uploaded QSOs to LotW
      > during the past 12
      months.
      >
      > 73,
      >
      > Dave, AA6YQ
      >
      >
      >
      From: David Levine
      > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 2:56 PM
      > To:
      ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
      >
      Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: LoTW Selection Algorithm
      >
      >
      >
      > Yes, making something more user
      friendly should be avoided. Because others
      > have endured a less then
      optimal experience, it should continue. :-/ Just
      > yesterday and today
      there were 2 folks dealing with this exact situation so
      > I wouldn't
      consider it uncommon.
      >
      > My suggestion would only enhance yours and
      everyone else. It would not take
      > anything away from what is already
      provided. It certainly isn't optimal if
      > folks have to write up and post
      steps on how to properly use the system.
      >
      > K2DSL -
      David
      >
      >
      >
      > From: "Elsie Gerry" <
      href="mailto:telwest%40telusplanet.net">telwest@...>
      >
      Sender: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
      >
      Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 14:38:42 -0600
      > To: <
      href="mailto:ARRL-LOTW%40yahoogroups.com">ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com>
      >
      ReplyTo: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
      >
      Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: LoTW Selection Algorithm
      >
      >
      >
      > LoTW applications and credits have
      worked fine for most of us for many years
      > and there is no reason to
      change it.
      >
      > Gerry VE6LB
      >
      >
      > From: David
      Levine
      > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 12:59 PM
      > To:
      href="mailto:ARRL-LOTW%40yahoogroups.com">ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
      >
      Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: LoTW Selection Algorithm
      >
      >
      >
      > I think the best approach that LoTW
      could do on the submission step is to
      > show an X for each band/mode that
      the QSL is eligible for. As an example, if
      > I have 2 QSLs with J5UAP 1
      being 20m RTTY and the other being a 20m CW and
      > if I've not had any
      Guinea-Bissau applied previously, each should show an X
      > for mixed, 20m
      and challenge with 1 showing an X for RTTY and 1 showing an X
      > for CW.
      Why should it show only 1 for Mixed and 1 for 20m? That would make
      > the
      most sense to me. It shouldn't try and *help* me by determining what it
      >
      feels is my best choice. I'm much better at determining which to check so
      > just have it show me what I get for selecting each one on its own
      merit. I
      > think that would solve this.
      >
      >
      > A lot of
      woulda coulda shoulda here.
      >
      > David -
      K2DSL
      >
      >
      > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Dave AA6YQ <
      href="mailto:aa6yq%40ambersoft.com">aa6yq@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >>>>AA6YQ comments
      below
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From:
      href="mailto:ARRL-LOTW%40yahoogroups.com">ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
      > Of David Levine
      >
      > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010
      12:28 PM
      > To:
      href="mailto:ARRL-LOTW%40yahoogroups.com">ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
      >
      Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: LoTW Selection Algorithm
      >
      >
      >
      Argh!!! Thanks for the steps in your document & specifically what is in step
      > 3 which seems to be the key to getting things to work as most folks
      would
      > want. I guess with some LoTW activities, old school is easier then
      the
      > "automated" method.
      >>>>For a significant number of
      QSOs, the correctly automated method is much
      > easier (and likely more
      accurate) than manually assembling a minimal
      >
      submission.
      >>>>I suspect that LotW's algorithm is "if a QSO
      confirms an un-credited
      > entity, entity-band, or entity-mode, add it to
      the submission and consider
      > the QSO's entity, entity-band, and
      entity-mode as "credited". So if you
      > don't have award credit for Yemen
      on RTTY or 160m, a confirmed 15m RTTY QSO
      > could be added to the
      submission (because it confirms RTTY and is
      > encountered first) even
      though there's a 160m RTTY QSO that confirms both
      > 160m and RTTY; the
      result is that two QSOs are submitted even though one
      > would
      suffice.
      >>>>The correct algorithm entails identifying QSOs that
      uniquely confirm
      > uncredited entities, entity-bands, and entity-modes and
      adding those to the
      > submission first, identifying QSOs that confirm both
      an uncredited
      > entity-band and an uncredited entity-mode and adding those
      to the submission
      > next, and finally submitting QSOs that confirm any
      remaining uncredited
      > entity, entity-band, or entity-mode. This requires
      knowing what awards the
      > user is pursuing, and knowing whether the user
      prefers submitting a hardcopy
      > QSL or LotW confirmation when there's a
      choice.
      > 73,
      > Dave,
      AA6YQ
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups
      Links
      >
      >
      >
      >

      --
      Sent from my mobile device

      Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!

    • Paul. W. Copeland
      Dave, thanks for your efforts. LoTW, though not perfect, IS a good thing. Lets hope that the powers that be will take this survey to heart and go from
      Message 68 of 68 , Sep 11 6:24 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave, thanks for your efforts.  LoTW, though not perfect, IS a good thing.  Lets hope that the "powers that be" will take this survey to heart and go from there.

        73 de K4KCS
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.