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

Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: Duplicates

Expand Messages
  • Joe Subich, W4TV
    Again, full of untruths and flip-flopping ... ... Keith claimed just this week that duplicates were less than 15% ... and you have repeatedly stated 1) that
    Message 1 of 147 , Feb 22, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Again, full of untruths and flip-flopping ...

      > No one is saying there aren't duplicates. No one is saying any
      > duplicates of any magnitude shouldn't be minimized. No one is
      > denying duplicates exist.

      Keith claimed just this week that "duplicates were less than 15%" ...
      and you have repeatedly stated 1) that duplicates were not a problem,
      2) would go down once the backlog went away and 3) were only due to
      users uploading complete logs at the request of ARRL.

      > I haven't seen Joe share his raw data as someone else previously did
      > (but stopped). If he shares his data then others can do similar
      > analysis and possibly come out with different results.

      I have several offered the accumulated data from the LotW Status (home
      page) and LotW Queue reports to anyone who wants it but nobody has asked
      for it. The raw data is also available directly from the sources going
      forward if anyone cares to capture it.

      > Joe has a Ferrari and claims it can do something that others believe
      > it can't. We need a Ferrari to prove that it's not the case. Joe has
      > the raw data (lame as it may be but it's what is available) and
      > others don't.

      No, Joe does not have a Ferrari - I've simply captured data already in
      the public domain and analyzed it with the statistical tools in Excel
      and/or the free Open Office Calc spreadsheets.

      > So his "show me your data" response is something other's can't.

      The only way to prove an analysis based on sampling is wrong is to use
      a larger sample (or the entire population) or an alternate analysis
      with a higher "confidence level" using the same data set. Right or
      wrong isn't the issue here - the only response to the analysis has been
      like children saying "that can't be - I don't believe you - you lie!"

      The accumulated raw sample data is available for anyone who knows what
      they are doing with statistical analysis to study. Otherwise, since the
      key to the disagreement is over determination of the number of raw QSOs
      processed each day/week - get ARRL make those numbers available to
      everyone.

      There is nothing underhanded here - it is simply a matter of applying
      freely available tools (Open Office Calc) to publicly available data.
      If you can't argue using facts and evidence, accept the analysis for
      what it is - a simple attempt to get at and illuminate the truth that
      ARRL has not been willing to address. If the problem of duplicates had
      been addressed a year or two ago when it first began to cause obvious
      problems, there might not have been a need to invest in new hardware and
      there certainly would not have been the problems that we've all
      seen over the last three months. If the issue of duplicates is not
      addressed it will continue to grow more rapidly that overall usage and
      cause problems again.

      If you can't accept the conclusions, bring an alternative analysis
      using facts and evidence - don't call the analysis "lies" as you and
      Kieth have done repeatedly.

      73,

      ... Joe, W4TV


      On 2/22/2013 2:43 PM, David Levine wrote:
      > John & others:
      >
      > W4TV said "I understand that you're tired of the fighting - I am too but
      > not at the point of allowing those who want to deny the problem to claim the
      > analysis is wrong."
      >
      > This is what Joe seems to have a mental block on. No one is saying there
      > aren't duplicates. No one is saying any duplicates of any magnitude
      > shouldn't be minimized. No one is denying duplicates exist. Joe can't see
      > that and is just responding to anyone challenging his conclusions. That's
      > why Joe calls folks names like "luddite". No one is challenging technology
      > or saying not to do anything. This lack of understanding is purely Joe's
      > problem and no one else I've seen on this list.
      >
      > Anyone that gets into the discussion is challenging his analysis of the
      > situation because of his conclusions from data gathered based on minimal
      > data provided by the system he's scraping. He's saying his combined scraped
      > snapshots represent an average that is valid and others challenge that
      > assumption. This is what Joe takes exception to because he's never wrong
      > and anyone that disagrees with his is always wrong. Doesn't matter the
      > subject or the mailing list.
      >
      > No one else is scraping data and I haven't seen Joe share his raw data as
      > someone else previously did (but stopped). If he shares his data then
      > others can do similar analysis and possibly come out with different
      > results. I don't have a Ferrari though it would be much cheaper then
      > sending my kids to college. Joe has a Ferrari and claims it can do
      > something that others believe it can't. We need a Ferrari to prove that
      > it's not the case. Joe has the raw data (lame as it may be but it's what is
      > available) and others don't. So his "show me your data" response is
      > something other's can't. If he shares the lame data, others might come to
      > different conclusions. As has been said all along, it's all a wild ass
      > guess anyway because the actual data needed to come to a correct conclusion
      > and not a guess isn't currently being shared on the pages we have access
      > to.
      >
      > K2DSL - David
      >
      >
      > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:40 PM, John Rudolph <ufdemt15@...> wrote:
      >
      >> **
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> This was sent off list from Joe to my email.
      >>
      >> <----- my reply
      >> When the ARRL CEO says there's still an issue, there is still an
      >> issue. The new hardware has papered over the problem by providing
      >> enough spare capacity to handle all the redundant processing for now.
      >> ARRL had to do the new hardware or the system would not have worked
      >> for anyone.
      >>
      >> I understand that you're tired of the fighting - I am too but not at
      >> the point of allowing those who want to deny the problem to claim
      >> the analysis is wrong.
      >>
      >> The only way to achieve a long term solution to the problem is for
      >> those responsible for the redundant processing - whether that be users
      >> or software producers - to be aware of the magnitude of the problem.
      >> ARRL Staff are working to make key software writers aware of the
      >> problems caused by their software and a team of volunteer programmers
      >> are working on ways to make tQSL smarter/less likely to send the same
      >> QSOs multiple times but the users also need to be made aware of the
      >> issues and become part of the solution - that takes awareness first
      >> and then education.
      >>
      >> 73,
      >>
      >> ... Joe, W4TV
      >>
      >> <-------- It does not serve any purpose to duke it out on the list and
      >> drive everyone away. If a few think its not an issue so what? If you think
      >> it is a problem OK. You have voiced your opinion and to the league.
      >> Everyone has a right to an opinion. This topic has been hashed out so many
      >> times we've beat the horse to death 10x over. Having this discussion any
      >> further is pointless. The ARRL believes there is an issue and they are
      >> working on it. They are redesigning tqsl, added more server capacity,
      >> formed a committee to look at issues, and are talking to the software
      >> programmers and high resource users. I know myself and others are also
      >> spreading the word to be careful not to upload the entire log. So nothing
      >> is gained by this ongoing discussion. All that is happening is we are
      >> turning group members away and showing to an international group how petty
      >> and rude we can all be. We may even be convincing others to not use LOTW
      >> period. So for the sake of the group, LOTW, and international goodwill can
      >> everyone just let this topic go and move on to help others and do something
      >> constructive.
      >>
      >
    • 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.