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

Re: Duplicates

Expand Messages
  • Pete Ennis
    Joe, So you want me to provide some real info here or “get lost”. I have always felt your numbers don t “pass the smell test”. So I thought it was
    Message 1 of 147 , Feb 20, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Joe,
      So you want me to provide some real info here or “get lost”. I have always felt your numbers don't “pass the smell test”. So I thought it was about time to get some real answers to the number of dupe QSOs (those matching exactly that of an already uploaded QSO) uploaded vs new or modified QSOs. I don't believe any of the numbers available to the public either on the Queue Status page or the numbers on the Logbook Status page give a true view of the percentages everyone is seeking. Regardless of how anyone massages these numbers. There is only one way to get it right. A phone call will be required.
      As expected I was given the usual run around at first. But one must be prepared when trying to get these kind of answers. It paid off.
      I was told a couple of things about LoTW. First, it was everyone’s opinion that LoTW is operating just “great”. The new hardware is exceeding expectations and with some future expandability built in it is expected to process data well past the life spam of the new hardware. And some changes to the user interface (Tqls) are in the works.
      Ok, let's get to the numbers. Now I was only interested in what is happening now. Not before the new hardware and not in the days after the new hardware. That data is old and reflects what happened because of the old hardware not keeping up with the load. We really want to know what is happening now.
      If the logs (or files) vs qsos are broken down we could see this data. The largest group of the logs have less than 50 qsos. Over half of these have less than 10 qsos. This group of logs have a very very small dupe rate. Then there is the logs from contests and expeditions. As expected these have near zero dupes unless upload with the operators daily logs. The rest are either old logs, larger logs of past qsos that are uploaded because of operator error or software that does not just upload new logs and other misc. logs. And then yes there are some logs that are upload as 100% dupes. Maybe for spite or just an error in judgment.
      That info is nice but what we really want to know is the percentage of dupes vs new or modified qsos that are being uploaded. This number is for month-to-date as of yesterday. Less than 15%. About twice what I expected but a lot less than 66.666%.
      One last bit of data although not a true measurement. The amount of processor time that is spent processing these dupes at this time was reported as “trivial”.
      So Joe this is my contribution to the group. Let's put this to rest and enjoy Ham radio. 73.
      Keith


       
    • David Cole
      I run ACLog... When you hit the ALL SINCE button, change the date to be something about a week prior to the LoTW failure... I believe , ACLog got very
      Message 147 of 147 , Aug 24, 2014
      • 0 Attachment
        I run ACLog... When you hit the "ALL SINCE" button, change the date to
        be something about a week prior to the LoTW failure...

        I "believe", ACLog got very confused as a result of the fail mode of
        LoTW. That corrected a very similar problem for me.
        --
        Thanks and 73's,
        For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:
        www.nk7z.net
        for MixW support see;
        http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mixw/info
        for Dopplergram information see:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dopplergram/info
        for MM-SSTV see:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MM-SSTV/info


        On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 09:05 -0700, reillyjf@... [ARRL-LOTW]
        wrote:
        >
        >
        > Thanks for the suggestion. I did a complete download, and beat the
        > number of duplicates down from 275 to 30. No exactly sure why the
        > N3FJP ACL is missing this information.
        > - 73, John, N0TA
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.