I had a spot removed yesterday because it was a duplicate spot, ie a spot containing the same activator, same summit and same frequency. No problem I can live with that. what I find strange is that there are 2 duplicate spots this morning for an MT member, can I ask why these have been allowed when mine was instantly removed. We all need to be treated equally.
73
Barry 2E0PXW
In reply to 2E0PXW:
Hi Barry
Interesting point but I can only assume they (mine and Roger’s) remain is because they’re related to weak VHF signals where the activator was spinning his beam.
I certainly couldn’t hear Tom when he worked Roger so his spot would have alerted folks in his area to listen (had they been QRV of course). I was very pleased with the QSO down here and glad Roger also tried to help out the locals with his spot.
I am inspired to do a bit of 2m CW from “The Woods” now. 
73 Marc G0AZS
In reply to G0AZS:
Hi Marc, thanks for the reply. Yes, I refer to your and Roger’s spots which are duplicates just as mine was. This isn’t a personal thing I’m just asking for equal treatment for all. I don’t understand your reasoning, " I can only assume they (mine and Roger’s) remain is because they’re related to weak VHF signals where the activator was spinning his beam" You clearly state that he was just workable and Roger quotes him as a 559 signal. Both of you obviously managed to work the station so your spots added no extra information to the activator. As I said earlier Marc, It’s not personal, just a call for equal treatment for all, we can’t accept double standards.
73
Barry 2E0PXW
I would have to agree with Marc that his spot of how he was hearing me in Buckinghamshire, and Roger’s in Yorkshire, are quite distinct but beneficial pieces of information to the chaser.
In fact, there are not double standards. There was another spot of my activation this morning that was deemed to be an unnecessary duplicate, and it was removed by Les G3VQO.
73, Tom M1EYP
In reply to 2E0PXW:
I don’t understand your reasoning… your spots added no extra information to the activator.
True… nothing extra for the activator… BUT the chaser might find them useful. It would tell them the activator had swung his beam and I should listen/beam up on them… whereas before they might have been inaudible.
I’m sure neither of us would have spotted had it been say 80m but I think it is useful for VHF.
I wouldn’t worry about it anyway. It’s not like the spots window is overflowing this morning anyway. 
73 Marc G0AZS
In reply to M1EYP:
Tom I fail to see how Roger letting the world know that you were 559 in Yorkshire is of use to anybody. I suppose I could say that my spot that was removed yesterday was of use to chasers then, so why remove it? Tom this is yet another blatant show of double standards and I hope that the readers are taking note of what is happening.
73
Barry 2E0PXW
In reply to 2E0PXW:
I don’t believe these are Barry’s own words. Has anyone checked the IP address being used because I suspect Barry’s account has been hijacked.
Andy
MM0FMF
In reply to G0AZS:Mark, I have made what I think is a valid point and thats an end to it as far as I am concerned, I repeat it’s not personal but just what I see as another show of double standards. VHF/UHF is no excuse, even HF can have poor conditions where chasers may benefit from duplicate spotting theres no difference. Maybe others will agree or disagree and offer us their valued opinions.
73
Barry 2E0PXW
In reply to MM0FMF:
Andy, I’m shocked at your post and find it very offensive, why on earth would you make a statement like that? YES please check the IP address. I would hope you would be decent enough to remove your post and apologise. Brian if you are here please remove Andy’s offensive post. I’m shocked. I hope Andy will now receive a stern warning from MT.
73
Barry 2E0PXW
In reply to 2E0PXW:
Hi Barry
I really don’t want to offend anyone so I have removed my spot after the fact.
However I do think that there is a difference between VHF, where some folks might be using a beam with a narrow beam-width (and thus you have control over what happens to the signal) versus HF where we are mostly using NVIS and we are at the mercy of the ionosphere and thus have little or no control… unless you have some very large antenna systems
Anyway let’s not fret… another “orage dans une tasse de thé”
73 Marc G0AZS
In reply to G0AZS:
Thanks Marc for removing your spot. “pas une tempête dans une tasse de thé mais ce que je pensais était un argument valable.”
73
Barry 2E0PXW
BTW Barry, the spot that was removed by Les this morning was one from a fellow MT member. That might ease your worries about ‘double standards’ somewhat.
Tom
In reply to M1EYP:
Tom, I was wrong to quote MT, all I ask is the same treatment for all, yes it is trivial and not life threatening, but fair play for all is important. Andy’s post is very offensive Tom and should be removed and a warning given. As a matter of fact, I don’t think Andy is the sort of man to post something like that, maybe it is his account that has been hijacked and needs looking in to.
73
Barry 2E0PXW
In reply to 2E0PXW:Hi all
I had the same thing happen to me a month or so back.
I put a spot on for some one and a identical spot was put on one minute after main saying the same thing and main was removed even tho my spot was the first to go on ??
Regards Nigel.
It will normally be the first spot that stays on Nigel. If a second spot a minute or so later includes an extra bit of useful information, then that might get preference. Previous to this action, the moderators were getting a lot of requests for it from chasers who found that the spots window was getting too cluttered with duplicate spots.
Obviously, it’s a judgement call as to whether a spot is an unnecessary duplicate or not, and then another one as to which one to delete. Sometimes it may not happen at all; there is no guarantee that at least one moderator is monitoring at any one time.
But as has been said, it shouldn’t matter whose spot gets deleted, so long as good information remains. A spot of my own got deleted by a fellow MT member this morning, but that doesn’t upset me. Far from it, I am grateful that someone is there giving of their time to maintain a good quality service to chasers while I am enjoying myself on a hill!
Tom M1EYP
I am very new to SOTA, but I would just like to express my gratitude to the activators, and to those who “spot” them. I run a QRP station at home (10 watts on HF to a 45’ long wire), so I need all the help I can get to work the summits
Without the “spots” I’m sure I would have missed several of the stations I’ve managed to work in the last few days. I’m having fun trying to work the SOTA stations, so thanks again to all involved.
In reply to G6LUG:
…which is the reason I ask for fair treatment for all spotters.
73
Barry 2E0PXW
In reply to:
If the spot system had some additional structure then it could easily allow users to display as much or as little of the information as they like. The need to delete spots would then presumably be less.
The spots could take the form of a master record of each activation and child records containing updates. A user might choose to display all updates or only the latest updates or only updates for a particular mode or band or association. Once a master record of an activation is entered then there would be no need to retype all the information again, just provide an update on the band or mode in use etc.
Nigel. G6SFP.
In reply to G6SFP:
I really can’t see what the fuss is about. I am quite happy for my spots to be deleted if they are considered superfluous. I would have deleted mine later anyway if I hadn’t rushed off to catch a bus immediately after I posted it.
Just got back now from a trip to York so its now gone.
Roger G4OWG
In reply to G4OWG:
I don’t understand what all the fuss is about, the activator was spotted, you could always ask the MT, to reinstate the one and only MR Spotter then we would not have any of this argie bargie rubbish, well you could spot or Not, simple as that.
Steve m0sgb