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

Thu Jun 17 10:12:00 EDT 2004

May I suggest that that apply to 160, 80 & 40
It may already be there for 80 & 40 , but I beleive they are also LSB 
defined bands.
73's
Rich
K5SF
>From: "Jack" <jack at dxbase.com>
>To: "Sergei" <ux1ua at qsl.net>,"'DXbase Reflector'" <dxbase at mailman.qth.net>
>Subject: Re: [Dxbase] Many, many more Dxbase LoTW import-related dupes 
>found
>Date: 2004年6月16日 18:32:31 -0400
>>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
> >
> >
> > __
> >
> >
>>_______________________________________________
>Dxbase mailing list
>Dxbase at mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dxbase