[Dxbase] Many, many more Dxbase LoTW import-related dupes found

Wed Jun 16 10:20:29 EDT 2004

I had one like that a while back.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned on this reflector as something to be aware of.
USB and LSB are different enough to cause DXBase to think they are two different qso's.
Personally I'd prefer DXBase to call them SSB or Phone and be done with the difference.
I don't think there is any awards specific to USB or LSB that the distinction would be
important.
Even as anal as I am about my log, this wouldn't be a killer to me.
I'd just delete the 'dupe' when I came across it. I wouldn't make a special project out of
it.
But...I'm sure that this will be an issue for the future.
There was no way predict when developing DXB2005 that these types of incorrect data would
be passed through LoTW.
Unfortunately LoTW was a bit behind schedule and these problems were not available for the
beta testing to discover.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William H. Hein" <Bill at NT1Y.com>
To: "DXbase Reflector" <dxbase at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:47 AM
Subject: [Dxbase] Many, many more Dxbase LoTW import-related dupes found
As I scan thru my log book, I am finding lots of these (dupe QSOs created
during a LoTW import procedure), all seemingly from the 1995 CQ WW 160m SSB
contest, where I made a big effort (over 1000 QSOs). Just noticed that the
original loggings all have the exact frequency noted (note frequency, not
band which is 160 in both cases) and the mode as LSB. The dupe QSOs, and
there are at least a few dozen of them, don't have the frequency field
filled in and are all listed as USB.
Perhaps this LSB vs. USB thing is the key? The imported QSOs are all noted
as USB, which is of course wrong. And LoTW does not distinguish between USB
and LSB, listing all SSB QSOs as simply SSB (is this an ADIF standard?).
73,
Bill NT1Y
_______________________________________________
Dxbase mailing list
Dxbase at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dxbase