This was exactly my point in the earlier posting. I am a software engineer by profession and I am responsible for providing the "push" infrastructure behind the the ESPN.com web sites. While I cannot
Can or could you add the technology of simultaneously displaying the Packet-Cluster spots so it would be easy to determine who was claiming single op but obviously stealing spots..??.. It is easy to
Someone using Packet surreptitiously would be a fool to jump on the spots right after they hit the screen. However, it would be pretty easy just to let them collect in the band map for a while and wo
Regarding the statement below "...but it would not stop the post contest 'massaging' of log data." On that topic I was rather shocked/surprised today when I submitted this year's small-time effort in
Yes, I think so. The scoreboard system could also aggregate data from the packet cluster as well. We would just need to come up with the algorithm to identify the possible misuse of spots. Any ideas?
I don't know an algorithm from a pizza pie but here is a starting place: The participant's real-time logs and DX Packet-Cluster spots are fed into some computer with some special software. The softwa
"It is easy to see that Packet-Cluster cheating is rampant and is a real threat to honest contesting." Please give one or more example call signs of winning or highly ranked operations that have chea
No, it is impossible to tell for sure from log data who is stealing spots and claiming unassisted. The only way is to have someone looking over the shoulder of unassisted ops as they do in wrtc. The
It is important to check the messages that the log robots send back to you. They mean that your log may be malformed in such a way that the log checking process may not be able to properly score your
The participant's real-time logs and DX Packet-Cluster spots are fed into some computer with some special software. The software will be 'smart' enough to read the spots and the logs, in real-time. M
I would love to see a basic system where every 5 - 10 minutes, the 'test software would send the participants call, entry class, # Q's (all bands), # Multi's (all bands) and raw score to a central se
This is not true. Often it is quite easy to spot these cheaters. If you have all of the logs you can often spot these guys fairly easily. I have seen enough logs over the years to have seen these sor
I think the idea of competing in daylight is interesting, but I suspect it would be of limited popular appeal. And I don't know if anyone's thought about how we pay for this. The bread and butter of
In a message dated 10/10/05 2:39:35 PM Greenwich Standard Time, KI9A@aol.com writes: As always, I am a proponent of eliminating the assisted category, let everyone use packet if they wish. Its a tool
Hi Mal, What you suggest makes sense to me. Barry, W2UP points out that it would be easy to 'game' the system by waiting for a time period to lapse and make it appear that normal S&P activity is taki
Kelly raises an important point. We absolutely cannot do anything to discourage/alienate the casual contester in any way. IMHO, they are the bread and butter and the top scorers seem to lure in a lar
It may make sense to you, but it is not a logical way to find offenders. How do you fix the 'X' time period? Pick 10 minutes, if a rare multiplier is getting spotted every 2 minutes or more often som
I received 17, yes 17, private emails asking me to name names. Well for obvious reasons I am not going to do that but I wanted to respond publicly to at least this one, because I found it interesting
Hey Mal, The N7MAL packet spots are public knowledge: KT8X 28030.0 N7MAL 2231 06 Nov 2004 WK6I 21010.8 N7MAL 2324 06 Nov 2004 W6ZZZ 3562.6 N7MAL az 0350 07 Nov 2004 W6ZZZ 3563.1 N7MAL 0430 07 Nov 200
You must have a short memory... think back, way back, before packet pileups... what caused pileups back then?? easy, two stations call, a third hears them and calls, then another hears the extra rack