Speak Out: A post-contest accuracy report for cluster spotting?
Operating with spotting assistance is not for everyone, but for those who use it, what do you think about there being a published "accuracy" report for spots made during contests?
33 opinions on this subject.
Enter your opinion at the bottom of this page.
[Speak Out Home Page]
dl2cc on 2011-10-31
You don't want to prevent motivation in people... mistakes can happen, any operator should listen to the callsign carefully anyway... I have another idea: any contester entering an assisted category should be judged on how many interesting spots he spotted... there are many who just take and never give!
ve6zzz on 2011-06-07
Guys,it's a tool to use at your own discretion,there are no guarantees that spot information is accurate of valid...if you get bit...too bad!! Roll with it.
N2KI on 2011-01-23
The accuracy of spotting is important for obvious reasons. I find that numerous times, RTTY spotters do not spot the proper frequency of the mark tone. They end up spotting the zero beat frequency which is 2.125kHz higher. So that becomes a problem to the inexperienced operator and an annoyance to the seasoned operator. Proper setup of their radio display is in order. I'm not sure what a so called "accuracy report" is supposed to do and don't think I would refer to it. Bottom line is know who you are working.
I see some comments about the spotting inaccuracy in relation to busted calls. The last I checked, it was the responsibility of the radio operator to ensure he/she gets a proper call sign and an RST to validate a contact. Period!
Regarding contest spotting in general:
Sour grapes perhaps? Some of you need to calm down.
This is the same scenario from when SO2R started. Before the SO2R class was born, some stations used two radios with the current software technology at the time and still exists today. The complainers at the time were the folks who either could not or did not want to operate in that regard. So they called it unfair, cheating etc because scores were, for the most part, doubled. The SO2R guys entered into the contest as SOAB because the SO2R was not an entry category thereby giving them an unfair advantage. Hence, the SO2R category was born. The same thing should happen here with regard to spotting assistance during contests. It should clearly be a separate entry sub-class category of which I haven't any qualms entering. Some contests have already incorporated that.
Maybe we should start to direct our ire at the stations who enter a high power category and have an auto tune amplifier? Its clearly an unfair advantage (tongue in cheek). Or what about the stations who have beam antennas competing against stations who only have wire antennas? Where does it end people!
KG5VK on 2010-11-25
Interesting to see that at least one poster thinks ANY
use of spotting is un sport like
maybe he is not considering so assisted or multi
I thinks a spot accuracy report would at least be
interesting post contest anal tool
ve5cma on 2010-10-16
Tracking spot accuracy would be interesting because we could compare it to the overall contest logging accuracy (via the "global" busted call ratio). I get that some spots are in error b/c of legitimate error on the part of the spotter. What high error rates might mean for any given spotter is a malicious streak of intentional flawed spots designed to damage others.
One other poster noted that we really have no way of screening the real identity of spotters anyway, but the concept of spotting accuracy measurement is interesting conceptually.
As always, hear it with your own ears, work them, then log it.
G1WFK on 2010-09-04
Spotting,like cluster,cw skimmer,and PERSEUS SDR "receiving",is BLATANT CHEATING.Any self respecting radio man would want to use his skills,to find the stations for himself,not have other people "hand" them to him,or have computer software do his "listening" for him while he sleeps. Anyone using these methods is NOT A RADIO AMATEUR. And should stop pretending to be one. Michael.
Anonymous on 2010-05-27
WA2GO on 2010-05-17
It would be cool if users could turn on or off the display of a spotter "feedback" rating (that looks just like ebay feedback, following their call in parenthesis) showing their historical spot accuracy. That would serve two purposes: 1. Give the person using the spot a relative confidence level in the accuracy of the spot; and 2. Shame the bad spotters to either be more careful or stop spotting. Of course, this would only work if they feel some sort of embarrassment at putting out garbage. (My own personal view on this is that your confidence level in the accuracy of any spot should be exactly 0% regardless of WHO made it. But the truth is, some people do probably log spots with a confidence level higher than 0%.)
wd4ddu on 2010-04-07
I personally would like to see how accurate MY OWN spots were during a particular contest. I am not interested in others mostly because anyone could log onto a particular packet cluster and use any call sign they wanted. I, like any good operator, verify the call with my own ears before I attempt to work the station. What I hate the most about the packet cluster is the public arguing that goes on between stations. Accusations of self spotting and the rediculous arguing over 14.300 are two prime examples.
Anonymous on 2009-09-28
I decided to run 100% S&P. Too many mucked up
spots for my taste so no clusters during
contests. Nothing at all wrong with those who
use assistance...I choose not to.
Enter your opinion about A post-contest accuracy report for cluster spotting?:
The opinions expressed within Contesting Online Speak Out are those of the
contributor, and not necessarily that of Contesting Online. Contesting Online
simply provides a forum for people to express their opinions on
various amateur radio contesting subjects of interest.
Do you have an idea for a Speak Out topic?
Email our Speak Out Manager
with your ideas.