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

Wed Jun 16 15:51:23 EDT 2004

Jack,
One thing seems to be DXbase problem. The Non-DXbase Import always put
USB instead of LSB on 160m band QSO. I always correct the DXbase log
after import WL contest logs. Why?
Regards,
Sergei UX1UA aka UV5U,EN1U
-----Original Message-----
From: dxbase-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:dxbase-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Jack
Sent: Wednesday, 16 June, 2004 18:58
To: Bill at NT1Y.com; DXbase Reflector
Subject: Re: [Dxbase] Many, many more Dxbase LoTW import-related dupes
found
Bill,
I've been watching your many posts to the DXbase Reflector about your
LoTW saga. I hope that you are directing all of these data integrity
issues to the LoTW folks since none of the issues you speak about are
DXbase problems. They all involve invalid data coming from the LoTW data
source. In fact, it's only because DXbase incorporates a rigorous set
of validations that these issues are being detected and allowing you the
opportunity to realize that LoTW is injecting errors into some of your
QSO database.
1. Invalid IOTA formats.
2. Invalid Mode designations.
3. Canadian provinces in the US State field.
4. Invalid grid designators.
5. Invalid zone information.
We, along with the makers of several other logging software products,
voiced our strong concern to the LoTW development team long ago that it
was critical for them to apply the ADIF standards and to implement some
data integrity checks. It's pretty obvious that our concerns have not
been addressed in the current deployment of the LoTW process. As time
goes by, data integrity problems will no doubt have a detrimental impact
on the entire LoTW effort for the ARRL since they are ultimately going
to have to face the fact that the LoTW database is full of erroneous
data. The LoTW process may well be the most secure and tamper proof
system ever known to mankind, but if the data it protects is prone to
error....
We do not mind folks using the DXbase Reflector to make others aware of
LoTW data integrity issues originated by LoTW, but please be careful
that you do not imply that these are deficiencies in DXbase because they
are not. Maybe there ought to be a reflector for LoTW where folks can
go and voice their issues to whomever is representing the LoTW system to
the public. We have lots of prospective customers review the DXbase
Reflector archives and we don't want them to walk away with a feeling
that these are DXbase issues when they are LoTW database problems.
I would be very interested to know what the LoTW folks have told you
about these issues and what their plan is for addressing them.
Thanks,
Jack
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William H. Hein" <Bill at NT1Y.com>
To: "DXbase Reflector" <dxbase at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 9:47 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
__