In reply to G8ADD:
Brian, you keep on quoting GMA adding to the problem, Surely it is the same German activators on the same German summits as has been since SOTA started. So, why do you predict change? It doesn’t make sense.
The other point is that you presume that we live by the spots alone, lot’s of us monitor the SOTA QRGs.
Mike GW0DSP
In reply to GW0DSP:
Right now I am monitoring 5.3985 and 7.118 by dual watch.
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to GW0DSP:
Tom, am I correct in presuming that the only possible way to filter
out none sota is via the summit ref.? If so Martyn has a very good
point.
I’m not convinced you’ve received an answer to this Mike. If the summit reference is the determining factor, then changes in frequency or band will not be recorded as the summit reference will remain the same for the second spot and that second spot and any subsequent spots will be deleted.
It could be that my backpack will be much lighter from now on… out goes 70cms, 23cms, 4m… oh, and HF as well. That’s one way of forcing us to adopt the simple life!
73, Gerald
In reply to G8ADD:
But what about 145, 144, 1.862, 7.032, 10.118, 70.450, 1297.500, etc etc. The point I am making Brian is that all activators need all the help that they can get!!
An example, 1st summit yesterday, a 4 pointer, I got just 4 QSOs on 7.032 that was it in half an hour due to terrible conditions. I was very lucky to have qualified it, even inky struggled by his normal standards. What if my summit ref hadn’t been heard? My time, fuel and energy would have been wasted, for what, the slight chance that I may not have been SOTA. Is it really worth it Brian?
73
Mike GW0DSP
In reply to G4OIG:
Not so, Gerald, valid summit references will not be refused, any deletion of dupes will be done manually and usually only at really busy times. Band and frequency change notifications are not considered dupes.
The MT are aware of the arguments against filtering out non-SOTA, some of them are good, and the decision was made by balancing arguments and a bit of crystal ball gazing. As Tom says, if the decision turns out to be a bad one then it can be reversed, but we intend to try it out first!
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G4OIG:
Gerald, you read my mind and knew exactly where I was taking this!!
It’s the activators who stand to lose out most if this goes ahead and like you, I might consider running 40m-cw only.
Maybe that’s the main problem, with the exception of Tom and Barry, there are no prolific activators on the MT who are making such decisions which may affect those who do venture out.
We are in lean times, money is tight and fuel is expensive. This is another nail in the activators coffin, a decision which is being forced on us.
73
Mike GW0DSP
In reply to G8ADD:
Not so, Gerald, valid summit references will not be refused, any
deletion of dupes will be done manually and usually only at really
busy times. Band and frequency change notifications are not considered
dupes.
Well that’s good news Brian. I’m certain many people rely upon the spots to tell them when I’ve changed bands… for example, Frank G3RMD may have worked me on 2m, then gone off to pick up Paul (G4MD) on HF and while he does so, I move to 70cms.
Despite having that concern addressed, I must say that I’m not convinced the decision is a good one. It implies a lack of trust and I certainly don’t see there is a problem anyway, after all, the spots record extends to 72 hours. All you have to do is click another tab and scroll down. Hardly much trouble!
73, Gerald
P.S "Fri 11:00 G6SFP/P on G/SE-XXX 5.3985-ssb,3.666-ssb,7-ssb,18-ssb (Posted by G6SFP) - can we kiss goodbye to alerts like this as well, or is that not on the cards?
Fri 11:00 G6SFP/P on G/SE-XXX 5.3985-ssb,3.666-ssb,7-ssb,18-ssb (Posted by G6SFP) - can we kiss goodbye to alerts like this as well, or is that not on the cards?
Yes and no. The issue can be by-passed by replacing XXX with a valid number that is one of the summits being considered, with a comment like “Could be a different summit”.
We haven’t really discussed alerts yet, but it would make sense to apply the same filtering and enquiry.
Tom M1EYP
In reply to M1EYP:
Good idea Tom, maybe the GMA lads can adopt the same approach?
Mike GW0DSP
In reply to M1EYP:
Hi Tom, could you explain me what does the abbreviation (GMA) mean ? I have asked Norby during the QSO but no response.
Thanks, Vrata OK1KT
In reply to OK1KT:
It means General Mountain Award, look here http://www.bergwettbewerb.de
73, Mike G4BLH
In reply to M1EYP:
Can I ask a straight question - are duplicate spots going to be automatically deleted, i.e. prevented from appearing, or not? If so, I do not understand Brian’s comment: “… any deletion of dupes will be done manually”.
Is everyone singing from the same song sheet?
73, Gerald
Vrata - GMA was originally the German Mountain Award, now called the General Mountain Award. It is a programme external and independent from SOTA and includes many of the sites that did not have the minimum prominence to remain as SOTA summits.
Mike - very funny hi! My “approach” was suggested to enable SOTA participants to alert/spot valid SOTA activations if they were unsure of the reference. The deliberate abuse of the system you imply would, of course, result in further necessary manual moderating.
Which would be a shame, because the whole point of the automation is to eliminate the need for manual moderation, which is both time consuming and unpopular.
Tom M1EYP
Gerald - no. The only plan at the moment is for the non-acceptance (note - not “deletion”) of spots (and possibly alerts) with invalid SOTA references. Dupe spots will still be deleted manually - those with no new information, usually only appearing as a result of two (or more) spotters spotting simultaneously.
So your main concern - of frequency and mode changes going unspotted - is unfounded.
Tom M1EYP
In reply to M1EYP:
Then I feel obliged to ask why there was no official announcment of the changes from MT PRIOR to Norby’s spots being deleted?
Maybe the problem is not what has been done but the way it was done.
Mike GW0DSP
Changes? I have deleted many non-SOTA spots over the years. It is the SOTAwatch website after all. It is nothing new, but will certainly be more consistently applied when it is automated against the SOTA reference. The only relatively “new” thing is that we now have non-SOTA references that look like SOTA references to consider.
Tom M1EYP
In reply to Tom:
If you go for auto-deletition, may I ask you to implement a filter so that activators can choose not to appear in Sotawatch, i.e. that spots referring to them are automatically deleted?
DX clusters are good examples on how lots of info can be handled differently. Nobody there needs deletition policies. User defined filters (- dxwatch - dx cluster) or custom spots (IOTA, QRP et al. on dx summits) are state of the art. These could be applied to Sotawatch or Sotawatch could move to a suitable dx cluster.
Especially with the MT’s international ambitions this might not be the worst choice.
Regards,
Gerd.
In reply to M1EYP:
Hi Tom.
I’m sure, all of us understand well the real reason of such a quick and unfriendly reaction. It’s clear, the GMA has been initiated by resentment of German amateurs. I don’t think, the SOTA MT has to act in the same manner.
73!
Janos, HA4FY
In reply to M1EYP:
… Dupe spots will still be deleted manually -
those with no new information, usually only appearing as a result of
two (or more) spotters spotting simultaneously.
Ah, so all the talk about the spots page being clogged with “superfluous” spots is irrelevant to this thread.
I still think that there is a lack of trust and that an “island mentality” is ruling the day. I assume the appropriate code for the filter is being given to the GMA (and other) sites so they can similarly go into isolation… and just when I thought we were starting to come out of the Dark Ages.
73, Gerald
Most SOTA spots will be valid for GMA though?
I think you’re making too much of it there Gerald. It’s simple. SOTAwatch is for spots of SOTA activity. Simple as that. I think questioning our trust or mentality isn’t really appropriate. Let’s see how it works out, review it and draw conclusions then?
Tom M1EYP