CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CW Open and the RBN

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CW Open and the RBN
From: K9MA <k9ma@sdellington.us>
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2021 10:00:58 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I wonder if those whose calls were mis-decoded were not looking at spots. (Even though there is no unassisted category in the CWops Open.) Perhaps those who plan to operate unassisted in other contests should run a test before the contest to make sure this isn't happening.

73,
Scott K9MA


On 9/5/2021 8:10 AM, Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:
I ran into an interesting phenomenon using RBN spots in the CWO. Several stations were repeatedly mis-decoded by the RBN, and I think the cause probably had to do with spacing.  I have BCC'd those I specifically noted, to avoid embarrassment, but here's the story:

Stations that left insufficient space in a CQ between "CWO" or "TEST" and the start of their callsign were "rewarded" with spots for ON and OK or TN (for example) instead of their real N and K prefixes.  Stations that inserted slightly additional spaces between letters in their suffix (this seems to have been particularly prevalent with last letters like "E" and "I") found their callsigns truncated (with the last letter left off)'.

If you think this might have been happening to you, you can test it by searching on the beta RBN web site for possibly truncated or expanded versions of your call.  You can even use a wildcard (*) at beta.reversebeacon.net/main.php to search for all the possible additions - some won't work because they result in imaginary prefixes.  Personally, I was delighted to learn that despite a lot of running, my call was not miscopied in this way by the RBN.  My CQs were all machine-sent, which may explain it.


--
Scott  K9MA

k9ma@sdellington.us

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>