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

Wed Jun 16 18:32:31 EDT 2004

Hi Sergei,
Yes, I see what you mean. Sorry about that.
We have made a change in the code for the Non DXB Import utility for DXbase
2005 so that if the ADIF file contains a value of SSB for the mode and 160m
for the band, we will default to LSB instead of the USB that was previously
coded.
Thanks for pointing this out. The updated file is available from the
support page of the DXbase website.
Regards,
Jack
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sergei" <ux1ua at qsl.net>
To: "'Jack'" <jack at dxbase.com>; "'DXbase Reflector'"
<dxbase at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:51 PM
Subject: RE: [Dxbase] Many, many more Dxbase LoTW import-related dupes found
> 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
>>> __
>>