[Cwo] Calls worked in CWO

[Alan Maenchen]

Excellent!  Thanks Matt!
I picked out another two dozen or so bad calls based on your list, and I'm
still going through it.

Also Tks Jim .. I missed the N2TJ error.
I don't know who made that boo boo yet. My software is not that far along,
and very simple. It only scanned ALL the logs and presented ALL the recorded
calls copied without making any judgements. That comes later. By deleting
the suspect busts in this list, the checking software will know there's a
problem when it sees the call in the log but it's missing from the "good
calls" list. I'm not going to even try to determine what the right call
should be this time around. No LCRs this time (well, maybe).

73, Alan  AD6E





On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Marshall "Matt" Thomas, WX5S <
mmthoma at attglobal.net> wrote:

> Thought better of the : idea.
> this just uses , and then extra calls. I think that looks better
> in excel format.
>
> /Matt WX5S
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Marshall "Matt" Thomas, WX5S <
> mmthoma at attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Al,
>>
>> Running your .csv through approximate callsign matcher
>> yields the attached csv.  If other approximate matches found,
>> see list starts with a ':'. ****BAD CALL for bad calls (like DOUG, etc).
>>
>> /Matt WX5S
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Alan Maenchen <ad6e at arrl.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a complete list of all calls recorded in all the logs received
>>> along with the Name associated with the call.
>>> Note, the number next to the call is the number of times that call pops
>>> up in the logs. The name may be correct (or not) and the number to the right
>>> is the number of times that Name agrees with that call .. all based on
>>> received data. So, if the name number is smaller than the call number, one
>>> can assume the name was copied wrong somewhere.
>>>
>>>
>>> First, WOW!
>>>
>>> There are 1149 call signs in this list .. meaning that over 1,000 hams
>>> participated in CWO.  Fantastic!   So why did we get only 372 logs? (problem
>>> for next time).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Second .. there are busted calls in this list.  Here's an example of some
>>> obvious ones:
>>>
>>>   WD5IDT 1 JIM 1  WD5IQT 1 JIM 1  WD5IYT 231 JIM 231  WD5YIT 1 JIM 1
>>> Obviously the first, second, and fourth are bad calls.
>>> Please go through this list and eyeball others that you think may be bad
>>> calls and send me your list.
>>> Just because you identify a bad call doesn't mean it is bad. I'll be able
>>> to check it. But if you don't give me anything to check, then the truly bad
>>> calls will get credit... and we don't want that.
>>>
>>> Third -  If you see an odd name that you don't think is right, let me
>>> know.  That isn't likely, but nothing is perfect... especially me. I'm
>>> especially suspicious of JA names.
>>>
>>> I found only 15 bad logs with format/entry problems. I've sent those back
>>> to the owners and asked them to fix their problems. Probably half were early
>>> N1MM revision and/or folks using CWT modules.   A bunch more have "Name" as
>>> their sent name.  I'm simply fixing those myself with a text editor. All in
>>> all, the logs look to be in excellent shape.
>>>
>>> Tks & 73,  Alan  AD6E
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cwo mailing list
>>> Cwo at kkn.net
>>> http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20110917/d59f5949/attachment.html