W4TV: I'm not using P to solve for T .... T is determined *independently* by> K2DSL: You need a data point you don't have to solve for either total

> # of QSOs or previously processed QSOs.

> Formula: Total # QSOs uploaded - New QSOs Uploaded = Previously

> Uploaded QSOs T - N = P abbreviating the above.

> Data isn't available for T or P so you have 2 unknowns. What you

> have presented is your personal determination of T based based on

> assumptions extrapolated from the data snapshots. That's what I noted

> in my original comment above - there are 2 unknowns.

sampling the entire population and P is calculated from that. There is

only one unknown - T (total QSOs) since P is T-N and we know N from the

status data at https://p1k.arrl.org/lotwuser/default.K2DSL: I didn't say you were using P to solve for T so why state that? I said there are 2 unknowns in the equation which is accurate. The only FACTs are # new qsos and # logs uploaded. You can't claim Total # of QSOs as a FACT as it's your guestimate based on the incomplete data provided. This specific item is what others are questioning.

If I remove the top 20% of status records based on backed up QSOs leaving 80% of the samples, that removes 95% of the QSOs you are using from the samples. That is how skewed the data is and also what others have been criticizing. With knowledge of the fundamental way the data will show in any one second, a single large file will have much greater impact as can be seen from this simple analysis.

Without the top 20%, the remaining 80% of the samples result in an average 85 QSOs/log. Knowing 125,261 logs uploaded as a fact within the sample period, Total QSOs in the sample period = 10,598,584 QSOs. We know as a fact the new QSOs in that sample period is 8,709,697 so that calculates out to:New QSO = 82%Previously uploaded QSOs = 18%You don't have to agree with the approach (I didn't particularly agree with yours) and I know you won't like the outcome, but it shows that not having the facts and making general assumptions based on a limited set of data and one that is particularly skewed can result in potentially inaccurate analysis.David - K2DSL- 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

>

>

>