2366RE: [dxatlas] Skim Server and Master.dta?
- Feb 1, 2011Im new to the skimmer group, but at least having the option to use a
master.dta or some other verification file would be nice. Not all
would be forced to using it, but for those like me, could turn that
option on when needed (Manage Error Rates). I know part of this
functionality is in CW Skimmer.....so would be nice to have the same
option in server.
I have just the N7TR skimmer spots showing up on my ARC4 cluster and do
not propagate any further then to my node. Also feed the RBN Network.
Users so far seem to like this approach....
Telnet to dxc.n7tr.com Port 23
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 8:44 AM
Cc: Alex, VE3NEA
Subject: Re: [dxatlas] Skim Server and Master.dta?
Ah, I'm glad to see this topic surfacing. Working with multiple
Skimmers feeding the RBN, we've encountered a rather different problem.
Here's a summary from the N1MM developers group, in response to a
complaint from N2IC about the plethora of bad spots he encountered over
the weekend in the CQ 160 CW test:
"[4:07:09 PM | Edited 4:07:49 PM] Pete Smith: I think I see the problem
now, and as Steve says, it depends on your definition of error rate. If
I watch the output of one skimmer, I see lots of spots and a very low
error rate. But if you watch the whole RBN or even a sub-set (like the
half-dozen Skimmers in PA, MD, VA, and WV) then the effective error rate
is much higher, because the errors make it through while the good spots
either come up gray (if already worked) or are duped out before they
ever make it to the bandmap. This makes it a particularly bad problem
late in a contest, when most of the legitimate stations have been worked
but the op must still look at every spot to make sure it is a miscopy.
[6:17:55 AM] Pete Smith: I will bring this to the people involved who
actually know something (Felipe, Nick and Dave) and see if we can come
up with a filter for the RBN that attempts to identify these situations
and filter out the junk. It'll take some doing, but should be do-able.
One simple-minded way would be to look at spots coming through within a
short time window on the same frequency, and if there are spots that
differ from the callsign that the majority are spotting correctly on
that frequency, don't send them out."
Kind of a voting system, I guess. Anyhow, the RBN solution aside. might
it be possible to do the same thing in Skimmer so that folks like Lee
who prefer to collect their Skimmer spots themselves. Or do you have a
better idea, Alex?
73, Pete N4ZR
The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at
The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
On 2/1/2011 9:43 AM, Alex, VE3NEA wrote:
> Hi Lee,
> I thought about this but could not find an acceptable solution. If
> Validation is set to Normal, almost every call is posted on the
> it first meets the Normal validation criteria. A few seconds later,
> more data are received, the call may meet a higher validation level,
> since it has already been posted, is will not be posted again. I have
> received tons of complaints about the same callsign posted multiple
> and had to enforce the 10-minute rule. The net result is, all spots,
> few exceptions, will have the Normal validation level.
> If your goal is to filter out possible errors after the aggregation of
> spots from multiple Skimmers, then one simple solution is to publish
> the callsigns reported by two or more Skimmers.
> 73 Alex VE3NEA
> ----- Original Message -----
> Alex would it be possible to include a number in the Skimmer spots
> field that lets users know what level of call verification is being
> It could be just before the CQ. For instance aggressive mode could be
> "3" and normal "1".
> Lee VE7CC
> Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>