Honus wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

snip

You're lucky at the moment, but like all list loggers, someday you'll
really screw
up, they all do. If you've been in the hobby for almost 40 years, surely
you'd be
aware of that.

Just what exactly is a list logger?

A list logger, in hobby parlance, is one who takes a published
frequency/station list, tunes his radio to said frequency at said time, and
then says 'I heard station 'xyz' at 2100 on frequency xxx', however, the
individual may have never heard an ID or anything that would actually indicate
that is indeed station 'xyz'.Their 'logging' is only as reliable (or
unreliable) as the list. Now, the list may or may not be correct, and the
station heard may not actually be the station on the list.

Things like that can and do happen. Proper identification leads to proper
lists, BUT, the list itself should only be used as a guide. Anything else is
merely a 'presumtive' logging of station 'xyz'

dxAce

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Honus wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

snip

You're lucky at the moment, but like all list loggers, someday you'll
really screw
up, they all do. If you've been in the hobby for almost 40 years,
surely
you'd be
aware of that.

Just what exactly is a list logger?

A list logger, in hobby parlance, is one who takes a published
frequency/station list, tunes his radio to said frequency at said time,
and
then says 'I heard station 'xyz' at 2100 on frequency xxx', however, the
individual may have never heard an ID or anything that would actually
indicate
that is indeed station 'xyz'.Their 'logging' is only as reliable (or
unreliable) as the list. Now, the list may or may not be correct, and the
station heard may not actually be the station on the list.

Ah. I thought as much. Is there any way of getting a sure station ID other
than on air identification, or perhaps simultaneous webcasts? (Or the
speaker identifying himself as Brother Stair.) It seems to me that anything
else would fall under the "presumptive" category.

I'm trying to be pretty picky about what I log. I'm doing this with my 9
year old daughter...we stick pins in a map on the wall marking the location
of the transmitters that we're receiving from. It's not as fun if we only
"think" that such and such a program came from such and such a place. I just
don't get why people would even bother list logging; it defeats the whole
purpose, in my view.

I'm a list lager, myself. If I drink too much beer, I tend to tilt to one
side.

In article ujT_c.2793$x12.561@trnddc05,
"Honus" wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Honus wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

snip

You're lucky at the moment, but like all list loggers, someday
you'll really screw up, they all do. If you've been in the
hobby for almost 40 years, surely you'd be aware of that.

Just what exactly is a list logger?

A list logger, in hobby parlance, is one who takes a published
frequency/station list, tunes his radio to said frequency at said
time, and then says 'I heard station 'xyz' at 2100 on frequency
xxx', however, the individual may have never heard an ID or
anything that would actually indicate that is indeed station
'xyz'.Their 'logging' is only as reliable (or unreliable) as the
list. Now, the list may or may not be correct, and the station
heard may not actually be the station on the list.

Ah. I thought as much. Is there any way of getting a sure station ID
other than on air identification, or perhaps simultaneous webcasts?
(Or the speaker identifying himself as Brother Stair.) It seems to me
that anything else would fall under the "presumptive" category.

I'm trying to be pretty picky about what I log. I'm doing this with
my 9 year old daughter...we stick pins in a map on the wall marking
the location of the transmitters that we're receiving from. It's not
as fun if we only "think" that such and such a program came from such
and such a place. I just don't get why people would even bother list
logging; it defeats the whole purpose, in my view.

I'm a list lager, myself. If I drink too much beer, I tend to tilt to
one side.

I sure there are plenty of methods you can use to figure it out such as
noting when a suspect station is broadcasting on more than one
frequency. This is where having more than one radio really comes in
handy. Looking up the programming content on the Internet would be
another. Drinking coffee instead of beer would be another.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

I sure there are plenty of methods you can use to figure it out such as
noting when a suspect station is broadcasting on more than one
frequency. This is where having more than one radio really comes in
handy. Looking up the programming content on the Internet would be
another.

I hadn't thought of looking for broadcasts on more than one frequency, so
it's a good thing I asked! g When I look at my Passport, I just plain
forget that some stations do that. Looks like I need to pick up a copy of
the WRTH too. That should prove helpful.

Drinking coffee instead of beer would be another.

That would help eliminate the partial list but then I'd be in serious
trouble when I was -entirely- horizontal...and trying to sleep.

Honus wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Honus wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

snip

You're lucky at the moment, but like all list loggers, someday you'll
really screw
up, they all do. If you've been in the hobby for almost 40 years,
surely
you'd be
aware of that.

Just what exactly is a list logger?

A list logger, in hobby parlance, is one who takes a published
frequency/station list, tunes his radio to said frequency at said time,
and
then says 'I heard station 'xyz' at 2100 on frequency xxx', however, the
individual may have never heard an ID or anything that would actually
indicate
that is indeed station 'xyz'.Their 'logging' is only as reliable (or
unreliable) as the list. Now, the list may or may not be correct, and the
station heard may not actually be the station on the list.

Ah. I thought as much. Is there any way of getting a sure station ID other
than on air identification, or perhaps simultaneous webcasts? (Or the
speaker identifying himself as Brother Stair.) It seems to me that anything
else would fall under the "presumptive" category.

I'm trying to be pretty picky about what I log. I'm doing this with my 9
year old daughter...we stick pins in a map on the wall marking the location
of the transmitters that we're receiving from. It's not as fun if we only
"think" that such and such a program came from such and such a place. I just
don't get why people would even bother list logging; it defeats the whole
purpose, in my view.

I'm a list lager, myself. If I drink too much beer, I tend to tilt to one
side.

One very to way to determine if it is the station in question is to check
parallel frequencies.

Let's say 'xyz' is using 11850 and 15275 at 2100. If the same broadcast is on
both frequencies at that time, it's a pretty good bet that it is indeed 'xyz'
that you are hearing. That still doesn't preclude hearing an ID, but this is a
reliable method.

dxAce

In article ujT_c.2793$x12.561@trnddc05, "Honus"
writes:


Ah. I thought as much. Is there any way of getting a sure station ID other
than on air identification, or perhaps simultaneous webcasts? (Or the
speaker identifying himself as Brother Stair.) It seems to me that anything
else would fall under the "presumptive" category.

I'm trying to be pretty picky about what I log. I'm doing this with my 9
year old daughter...we stick pins in a map on the wall marking the location
of the transmitters that we're receiving from.

This sounds nice; she'll remember this as good times with Dad. . . .
& you might consider Switching
to Diet Coke or coffee whilst DX'ing with yer daughter . . .