OK, we have a problem. Continuous callers.

Back when I got into this thing (and I'm really not that old), a great
tactic for working the DX was to find the guy he's working, set the
transmitter 100Hz or so higher, and then when the DX is ready for callers
again, call there. Used to work pretty well.

This tactic is no longer possible. It's impossible to find the guy the
DX is working! - because every time he comes back to someone, the WHOLE
PILEUP calls. More than a few times, the DX comes back to someone and
gives him a signal report -- and the guy just calls again.

Obviously, a lot of these people **cannot hear the DX they're calling.**
If not for an accurate spot in the network, they'd have no idea there was
a DX station there - nor would they have any idea where to transmit.

=======================

So, here's my proposal.

The spotting software adds a field to each user's record.

This field is a record of how many "confirmed spots" that user has made.
Your spot is "confirmed" if at least two other users have spotted the
same DX callsign within 1KHz of the same frequency within an hour either
side of when you spotted it.

Now, when a new spot comes in from someone else, and you're logged in...

If you have enough "confirmed spots" in your record -- say, five in the
last six months, just to toss out a number -- then the network sends you
the entire spot. Including accurate frequency and any QSX information.

If you *don't* have enough confirmed spots... then you get partial
information. Say, the frequency to the nearest 25KHz and the word
"SPLIT" if a QSX frequency or the word "UP" appeared in the original spot.

You get:
DX de W9WI: 14027.3 E44M QSX UP 3 1807z
- or -
DX de W9WI: 14025+/- E44M SPLIT 1807z

depending on whether you've sent enough accurate spots.

==========================

Presumably if you're capable of making a reasonable number of accurate
spots, you're able to hear and copy DX and can be trusted to participate
in a pileup without screwing everyone else.

If you haven't proven your ability to copy the DX, well, you still know
the DX is there -- but you're going to have to tune your radio and copy
some callsigns if you want to know where they really are and stand some
chance of actually working them.

==========================

No, it's not perfect. Someone will cheat the system. But might it at
least be better than what we have right now?

--
/home/w9wi/.sig

Doug Smith wrote:
OK, we have a problem. Continuous callers.

We as in whom? It's IMHO part of a much greater problem. Back when
morse code was required to get a ham license was first dropped,
many hams claimed that the ability to send and receive morse code was
a good way of testing for good operating practices. If you were competent
at code, you were competent at ham radio operating.

This was as it turns out, a red herring, a diversion from the real problem
that good operating practices are related to good operating practices and
not related to morse code, typing, building a radio or any other skills.

DX de W9WI: 14027.3 E44M QSX UP 3 1807z
- or -
DX de W9WI: 14025+/- E44M SPLIT 1807z

Your examples point out that in fact you are complaining about morse code
operators, although I expect that the same problem exists with voice
operators.

E44M may be a special case, because while there has been some propigation
to most of the world from this area, in the last few days, there has been
very little most of the time. In fact, worldwide propigation from here has
been very "spotty" since the decline of the sunspot cycle.

That does not mean that you can't use it, I have worked Europe with 2w SSB
on 20m, a friend has recently worked South America with less on CW. But it's
not a "sure thing".

However, the real problem is that no one wants to learn good operating
practice anymore.

Unfortunatley, I don't have an answer, but I don't think that a quick
software fix to a spotting program will do any good. If I were in the U.S.,
which I am not at the moment, I would concentrate my efforts of education
and raising a new generation of good operators.

73,

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:29:03 +0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Doug Smith wrote:
OK, we have a problem. Continuous callers.

We as in whom? It's IMHO part of a much greater problem. Back when morse
code was required to get a ham license was first dropped, many hams
claimed that the ability to send and receive morse code was a good way
of testing for good operating practices. If you were competent at code,
you were competent at ham radio operating.

This was as it turns out, a red herring, a diversion from the real
problem that good operating practices are related to good operating
practices and not related to morse code, typing, building a radio or any
other skills.

DX de W9WI: 14027.3 E44M QSX UP 3 1807z
- or -
DX de W9WI: 14025+/- E44M SPLIT 1807z

Your examples point out that in fact you are complaining about morse
code operators, although I expect that the same problem exists with
voice operators.

E44M may be a special case, because while there has been some
propigation to most of the world from this area, in the last few days,
there has been very little most of the time. In fact, worldwide
propigation from here has been very "spotty" since the decline of the
sunspot cycle.

E44M isn't really a special case -- last week I experienced the same
problem from the "DX" end. (Tennessee is hardly a "rare one"!)

Trying to work PH0AW on RTTY, and finding a couple of other Europeans -
who didn't have any of the characters "P" "H" "0" "A" "W" in their calls
- calling me every time I stopped transmitting. (they would have got
their QSO a lot faster if they'd let me finish with PH0AW first!)

And in general, this happens in EVERY pileup these days.

(BTW, E44M has actually been surprisingly loud here - they were even Q5
in the mobile on 40 last night around 0500z. I suppose they're far
enough south to escape some of the worst effects of the poor propagation.)

However, the real problem is that no one wants to learn good operating
practice anymore.

This is of course the basic problem. (and in part why this post is
titled "semi-facetous") Really, the spotting network is no more
responsible for this problem than the easy availablity of cars is
responsible for drunken driving. But one does have to wonder.....

--
/home/w9wi/.sig