Other SOTA sites: SOTAwatch | SOTA Home | Database | Video | Photos | Shop | Mapping | FAQs | Facebook | Contact SOTA

Removal of useful spots from SOTAWatch


#1

I worked and spotted DL/LX1NO/P this morning on 30m after discovering that Norby was on a GMA Summit. RP-295 was deleted on 31/12/2008. I indicated that fact in the comments box as an aid to Chasers.

In my case I don’t chase GMA summits and have no intention of starting to do so. In which case if someone else had spotted this activity the same way as I did with this information quote: This is no longer a valid summit from 31/12/2008 unquote that would have been useful to me.

So why are these useful spots (even though the activity is not SOTA) being deleted by a moderator when the information is useful to SOTA Chasers?

Phil G4OBK


#2

In reply to G4OBK:

Phil, this is a logical extension of the practise of deleting duplicate spots, as SOTA gets more popular the Spots page is going to come under heavier pressure with current activations being pushed further and further down the page as new ones start up. It therefore makes sense to delete all non SOTA spots, not just GMA but we often get other portable operations and even lighthouses spotted. It might be considered that on a quiet day GMA spots might be left but that would cause controversy if a busy day comes along and they were deleted when they had been left on the previous quiet day.

Soon an automatic filter will be installed and it will be impossible to spot non-SOTA activations.

Please don’t regard this as hostility towards GMA.

73

Brian G8ADD


#3

In reply to G4OBK:

Sorry Phil, I didn’t see your thread before I started a similar one.

Now, I am very confused! I was told that none sota spots were ok, see link on my thread, apparently now they are not. As you rightly say, if the spot carries useful info to chasers, as your spot did, why remove them, especially on a quiet day.

I know what Norby’s reaction will be when he gets home and reads what has happened. I wish we could hae a set rule for ALL so we know where we stand.

73
Mike GW0DSP


#4

In reply to G8ADD:

Brian, there is only one other op out today, not exactly pushing the spots off the page was it.

See the link in my similar thread, I think you took part in that thread. Check your statement back then against what you say above. It gets more confusing by the day.

Mike GW0DSP


#5

In reply to GW0DSP:

The SOTA facilities are not set in stone, Mike, they evolve in response to the development of the program. The MT saw that the situation was tolerable at present but anticipated that as the weather improves the pressure on spots will increase, and there are more Associations gearing up which would increase the pressure even further, and if as we hope GMA activations become more frequent then the spot facility could be overloaded to the point where its usefulness deteriorates. Rather than depend on the constant minute attention of moderators the decision was taken to automate the process.

Confusion is bound to occur as policies evolve, but I am sure that with a little thought you will appreciate the rationale of the policy and will soon get used to it.

73

Brian G8ADD


#6

In reply to G8ADD:

Please don’t regard this as hostility towards GMA.

Sorry, to say Brian, but I’m sure, many European,(I mean non-UK) especially German SOTA-friends do.

73!
Janos, HA4FY


#7

In reply to HA4FY:

In reply to G8ADD:

Please don’t regard this as hostility towards GMA.

Sorry, to say Brian, but I’m sure, many European,(I mean non-UK)
especially German SOTA-friends do.

73!
Janos, HA4FY

Many UK ops do also Janos!

73
Mike GW0DSP