RE: [ARRL-LOTW] Duplicate Wars
>>>AA6YQ comments belowFrom: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of David Levine
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Duplicate Wars
I can't tell what the tQSL default is without reinstalling which maybe I'll
do on a different computer, but I provided Dave with a request to make the
default to check that the date range prompt be on by default and show the
earliest and latest date in dataset that was being processed. My tQSL date
prompt option was unchecked and I don't recall if that was the default or I
unchecked it. AA6YQ and I had some additional back and forth on it but what
makes sense will be based on what other changes get included in the first
go-around as some options under consideration would override the current
date prompting behavior.
>>>The date range need only be displayed to the user when TQSL's analysis of
the file to be signed and uploaded indicates that the file may contain
Unless TQSL is extended to detect exact duplicates, it would not have the ability to directly inform the user that a file they wish to upload contains more than X duplicates.
Assuming that improvements along the lines of those suggested below are implemented, the user who submits excessive duplicates would receive an email message from the LotW Server informing them that their submitted file contains too many duplicates, that this file will be processed at low priority, and that they should review <www.arrl.org/lotw/NoMoreDupes.org> to prevent this from happening again.
A user who uploads a file with too many duplicates but does not supply a valid email message would not automatically receive this notification and feedback. ARRL management would have to find other means of contacting such users, perhaps by posting a message on each user’s LotW web page. There are several other ways to gain the attention of such users, should LotW management wish to do so.
Those are good things to know, thanks.
Sever productivity preservation is a good start.
Will TQSL also provide some unsuppressed feedback to the user when the percentage of exact duplicate records gets beyond some level, or recurs after some number of times? How will the repeatedly duping users learn about the problem if they don't get some feedback?
These users would also benefit from regaining time spent waiting while their entire history grinds through TQSL over and over. While some might not care about how much time they've wasted or might continue to waste, I do. They should be on the air making more contacts. :P
--- In ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" wrote:
> >>>>AA6YQ comments below
> From: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of geoffrey7b
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 12:51 PM
> To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: Duplicate Wars
> So if the next version of TQSL will be backward compatible, does that mean
> poorly designed logging programs will still be able to
> mask/avoid/block/bypass ANY or ALL feedback from TQSL and preserve the
> ability to continue to upload one's entire operating history without
> realizing it?
> How will the redundant duplicates problem be solved if TQSL doesn't change
> its responses to the poorly designed software?
> >>>By extending TQSL to sort uploaded batches of QSOs in reverse
> chronological order, and by extending the LotW Server to
> - terminate processing of an uploaded batch containing more than N (to be
> specified by ARRL management) duplicates,
> - notify the submitting user with an email message that points them to an
> online description of how to avoid uploading duplicate QSOs
> - place the remainder of the uploaded batch in a low-priority queue that is
> only serviced when the standard queue is empty.
> >>>Note that one of the extensions being considered for TQSL would enable it
> to automatically remove exact duplicate QSOs from files to be uploaded. This
> would not break backward command line compatibility, as the results of
> uploading an exact duplicate and the results of not uploading an exact
> duplicate are identical, other than in LotW Server resource consumption.
> Dave, AA6YQ
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2637/5512 - Release Date: 01/05/13