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

Thu Jun 17 21:04:53 EDT 2004

Rich,
80 and 40 were already handled properly. We just didn't include 160, but it
is handled in the patch.
Regards,
Jack
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Detweiler" <rdetweil at hotmail.com>
To: <jack at dxbase.com>; <dxbase at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Dxbase] Many, many more Dxbase LoTW import-related dupes found
> 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
>>>