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

Skim Server and Master.dta?

Expand Messages
  • Rich Hallman - N7TR
    Does the latest Skimmer Server use the Master.DTA in the aggressive mode? Noticed there is a MASTER.DTA with CW Skimmer....but not server? Wondered how the
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 28, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Does the latest Skimmer Server use the Master.DTA in the aggressive
      mode?



      Noticed there is a MASTER.DTA with CW Skimmer....but not server?
      Wondered how the Aggressive mode in server differs from Normal?



      Thanks....



      Rich N7TR

      ex KI3V, N3AMK, WB3JOV

      www.n7tr.com <http://www.n7tr.com>

      Telnet: dxc.n7tr.com N7TR DXCluster





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Alex, VE3NEA
      Hi Rich, Skimmer Server does not use Master.dta. In the Aggressive mode, more repetitions of the callsign are required before the spot is posted. Alex ...
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 29, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Rich,

        Skimmer Server does not use Master.dta.

        In the Aggressive mode, more repetitions of the callsign are required before
        the spot is posted.

        Alex







        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Rich Hallman - N7TR" <rich@...>
        To: <dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 12:22 AM
        Subject: [dxatlas] Skim Server and Master.dta?


        > Does the latest Skimmer Server use the Master.DTA in the aggressive
        > mode?
        >
        >
        >
        > Noticed there is a MASTER.DTA with CW Skimmer....but not server?
        > Wondered how the Aggressive mode in server differs from Normal?
        >
        >
        >
        > Thanks....
        >
        >
        >
        > Rich N7TR
        >
        > ex KI3V, N3AMK, WB3JOV
        >
        > www.n7tr.com <http://www.n7tr.com>
        >
        > Telnet: dxc.n7tr.com N7TR DXCluster
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
      • ve7cc
        Alex would it be possible to include a number in the Skimmer spots comment s field that lets users know what level of call verification is being used? It
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Alex would it be possible to include a number in the Skimmer spots comment's field that lets users know what level of call verification is being used? It could be just before the CQ. For instance aggressive mode could be say "3" and normal "1".

          Lee VE7CC


          --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "Alex, VE3NEA" <alshovk@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Rich,
          >
          > Skimmer Server does not use Master.dta.
          >
          > In the Aggressive mode, more repetitions of the callsign are required before
          > the spot is posted.
          >
          > Alex
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "Rich Hallman - N7TR" <rich@...>
          > To: <dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 12:22 AM
          > Subject: [dxatlas] Skim Server and Master.dta?
          >
          >
          > > Does the latest Skimmer Server use the Master.DTA in the aggressive
          > > mode?
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Noticed there is a MASTER.DTA with CW Skimmer....but not server?
          > > Wondered how the Aggressive mode in server differs from Normal?
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Thanks....
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Rich N7TR
          > >
          > > ex KI3V, N3AMK, WB3JOV
          > >
          > > www.n7tr.com <http://www.n7tr.com>
          > >
          > > Telnet: dxc.n7tr.com N7TR DXCluster
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > >
          >
        • Alex, VE3NEA
          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 network when it
          Message 4 of 9 , Feb 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            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 network when
            it first meets the Normal validation criteria. A few seconds later, when
            more data are received, the call may meet a higher validation level, but
            since it has already been posted, is will not be posted again. I have
            received tons of complaints about the same callsign posted multiple times,
            and had to enforce the 10-minute rule. The net result is, all spots, with a
            few exceptions, will have the Normal validation level.

            If your goal is to filter out possible errors after the aggregation of the
            spots from multiple Skimmers, then one simple solution is to publish only
            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 comment's
            field that lets users know what level of call verification is being used?
            It could be just before the CQ. For instance aggressive mode could be say
            "3" and normal "1".

            Lee VE7CC
          • Pete Smith
            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
            Message 5 of 9 , Feb 1, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              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 www.conteststations.com
              The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
              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 network when
              > it first meets the Normal validation criteria. A few seconds later, when
              > more data are received, the call may meet a higher validation level, but
              > since it has already been posted, is will not be posted again. I have
              > received tons of complaints about the same callsign posted multiple times,
              > and had to enforce the 10-minute rule. The net result is, all spots, with a
              > few exceptions, will have the Normal validation level.
              >
              > If your goal is to filter out possible errors after the aggregation of the
              > spots from multiple Skimmers, then one simple solution is to publish only
              > 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 comment's
              > field that lets users know what level of call verification is being used?
              > It could be just before the CQ. For instance aggressive mode could be say
              > "3" and normal "1".
              >
              > Lee VE7CC
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Alex, VE3NEA
              Hi Pete, As I have already written, a program that receives spots from multiple Skimmers can radically reduce the number of errors simply by showing only the
              Message 6 of 9 , Feb 1, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Pete,

                As I have already written, a program that receives spots from multiple
                Skimmers can radically reduce the number of errors simply by showing only
                the spots received from two or more Skimmers. This is the same principle
                that is used for Aggressive filtering in CW Skimmer, except that instead of
                waiting for more copies of the callsign decoded by the same Skimmer, we
                would get those copies instantly from other Skimmers. In other words,
                instead of time diversity we would use spatial diversity.

                73 Alex VE3NEA





                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Pete Smith" <n4zr@...>
                To: <dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com>
                Cc: "Alex, VE3NEA" <alshovk@...>
                Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:44 AM
                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
                > www.conteststations.com
                > The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
                > reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
                > 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 network
                >> when
                >> it first meets the Normal validation criteria. A few seconds later, when
                >> more data are received, the call may meet a higher validation level, but
                >> since it has already been posted, is will not be posted again. I have
                >> received tons of complaints about the same callsign posted multiple
                >> times,
                >> and had to enforce the 10-minute rule. The net result is, all spots, with
                >> a
                >> few exceptions, will have the Normal validation level.
                >>
                >> If your goal is to filter out possible errors after the aggregation of
                >> the
                >> spots from multiple Skimmers, then one simple solution is to publish only
                >> the callsigns reported by two or more Skimmers.
                >>
                >> 73 Alex VE3NEA
                >>
                >>
              • Rich Hallman - N7TR
                Im 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
                Message 7 of 9 , Feb 1, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Im 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



                  Thanks....

                  Rich







                  From: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
                  [mailto:dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
                  Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 8:44 AM
                  To: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
                  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
                  www.conteststations.com
                  The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
                  reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
                  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
                  network when
                  > it first meets the Normal validation criteria. A few seconds later,
                  when
                  > more data are received, the call may meet a higher validation level,
                  but
                  > since it has already been posted, is will not be posted again. I have
                  > received tons of complaints about the same callsign posted multiple
                  times,
                  > and had to enforce the 10-minute rule. The net result is, all spots,
                  with a
                  > few exceptions, will have the Normal validation level.
                  >
                  > If your goal is to filter out possible errors after the aggregation of
                  the
                  > spots from multiple Skimmers, then one simple solution is to publish
                  only
                  > 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
                  comment's
                  > field that lets users know what level of call verification is being
                  used?
                  > It could be just before the CQ. For instance aggressive mode could be
                  say
                  > "3" and normal "1".
                  >
                  > Lee VE7CC
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Alex, VE3NEA
                  Hi Rich, Skimmer Server is designed to skim 7 bands simultaneously, and its code is optimized for decoding as many concurrent CW signals as possible. I had to
                  Message 8 of 9 , Feb 1, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Rich,

                    Skimmer Server is designed to skim 7 bands simultaneously, and its code is
                    optimized for decoding as many concurrent CW signals as possible. I had to
                    rewrite a number of procedures in Assembler, using the SSE instructions, in
                    order to save some precious CPU cycles. It would be a shame to waste those
                    hard-earned cycles on searching the master.dta file, something that is not
                    part of skimming and that can be easily done elsewhere, e.g., at the cluster
                    node or even in the client software.

                    73 Alex VE3NEA





                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Rich Hallman - N7TR" <rich@...>
                    To: <dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com>
                    Cc: "Alex, VE3NEA" <alshovk@...>
                    Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:49 PM
                    Subject: RE: [dxatlas] Skim Server and Master.dta?


                    > Im 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
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Thanks....
                    >
                    > Rich
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > From: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
                    > [mailto:dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
                    > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 8:44 AM
                    > To: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
                    > 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
                    > www.conteststations.com
                    > The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
                    > reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
                    > 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
                    > network when
                    >> it first meets the Normal validation criteria. A few seconds later,
                    > when
                    >> more data are received, the call may meet a higher validation level,
                    > but
                    >> since it has already been posted, is will not be posted again. I have
                    >> received tons of complaints about the same callsign posted multiple
                    > times,
                    >> and had to enforce the 10-minute rule. The net result is, all spots,
                    > with a
                    >> few exceptions, will have the Normal validation level.
                    >>
                    >> If your goal is to filter out possible errors after the aggregation of
                    > the
                    >> spots from multiple Skimmers, then one simple solution is to publish
                    > only
                    >> 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
                    > comment's
                    >> field that lets users know what level of call verification is being
                    > used?
                    >> It could be just before the CQ. For instance aggressive mode could be
                    > say
                    >> "3" and normal "1".
                    >>
                    >> Lee VE7CC
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> ------------------------------------
                    >>
                    >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                  • Rich Hallman - N7TR
                    Thanks for the update Alex and makes sense..... Rich From: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex, VE3NEA Sent:
                    Message 9 of 9 , Feb 1, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks for the update Alex and makes sense.....



                      Rich



                      From: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
                      [mailto:dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex, VE3NEA
                      Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 10:13 AM
                      To: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [dxatlas] Skim Server and Master.dta?





                      Hi Rich,

                      Skimmer Server is designed to skim 7 bands simultaneously, and its code
                      is
                      optimized for decoding as many concurrent CW signals as possible. I had
                      to
                      rewrite a number of procedures in Assembler, using the SSE instructions,
                      in
                      order to save some precious CPU cycles. It would be a shame to waste
                      those
                      hard-earned cycles on searching the master.dta file, something that is
                      not
                      part of skimming and that can be easily done elsewhere, e.g., at the
                      cluster
                      node or even in the client software.

                      73 Alex VE3NEA

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Rich Hallman - N7TR" <rich@... <mailto:rich%40n7tr.com> >
                      To: <dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
                      <mailto:dxatlas_group%40yahoogroups.com> >
                      Cc: "Alex, VE3NEA" <alshovk@... <mailto:alshovk%40dxatlas.com> >
                      Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:49 PM
                      Subject: RE: [dxatlas] Skim Server and Master.dta?

                      > Im 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
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Thanks....
                      >
                      > Rich
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > From: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
                      <mailto:dxatlas_group%40yahoogroups.com>
                      > [mailto:dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
                      <mailto:dxatlas_group%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
                      > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 8:44 AM
                      > To: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
                      <mailto:dxatlas_group%40yahoogroups.com>
                      > 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
                      > www.conteststations.com
                      > The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
                      > reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
                      > 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
                      > network when
                      >> it first meets the Normal validation criteria. A few seconds later,
                      > when
                      >> more data are received, the call may meet a higher validation level,
                      > but
                      >> since it has already been posted, is will not be posted again. I have
                      >> received tons of complaints about the same callsign posted multiple
                      > times,
                      >> and had to enforce the 10-minute rule. The net result is, all spots,
                      > with a
                      >> few exceptions, will have the Normal validation level.
                      >>
                      >> If your goal is to filter out possible errors after the aggregation
                      of
                      > the
                      >> spots from multiple Skimmers, then one simple solution is to publish
                      > only
                      >> 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
                      > comment's
                      >> field that lets users know what level of call verification is being
                      > used?
                      >> It could be just before the CQ. For instance aggressive mode could be
                      > say
                      >> "3" and normal "1".
                      >>
                      >> Lee VE7CC
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> ------------------------------------
                      >>
                      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.