The drop-down list for RST in CW mode doesn't allow for any signal report suffixes (such as A, C, K, M, S or X). This is an error as this signal modifier should be included when present.
Additionally, in general usability terms, the drop-down list is an extremely poor choice for CW RST as the progression isn't a linear function. (As a simple example, when a signal loses (or gains) readability from 5 to 4, it generally isn't at strength 1, it can happen at any strength due to QRM, QRN, QSB, Auroral effects, etc.)
Please allow direct type-in (with no time-limit as presently exists) CW RSTs with allowance for suffixes. As you can see from the recent QSOs in my own log, 599 is sometimes present, but not all the time.
73,
Larry N1FG
CW RST Issues
Re: CW RST Issues
Just checking - Is this error going to remain in the software forever?
Larry N1FG
Larry N1FG
- G4POP
- Log4OM Alpha Team
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: 21 Jan 2013, 14:55
- Location: Burnham on Crouch, Essex UK
Re: CW RST Issues
As far as I am aware there is no provission in the authorised ADIF format for such reports
Changing to a format not compatible with ADIF could/will cause issues on import and export with other software and on line logs
The list values can be changed by the user in the resources editor
73 Terry G4POP
Re: CW RST Issues
I'm surprised you don't know the ADIF spec Terry, for these two fields (RST_RCVD and RST_SENT) a string (ADIF 314).
Larry
P.S. Edit to add - the list isn't a good solution (as described before) as RST values are NOT a linear function. (And drop-down lists of over a dozen items are rarely a good idea, a list with hundreds of items NEVER a good idea.)
Larry
P.S. Edit to add - the list isn't a good solution (as described before) as RST values are NOT a linear function. (And drop-down lists of over a dozen items are rarely a good idea, a list with hundreds of items NEVER a good idea.)
Re: CW RST Issues
And like I said, RST values (for CW) are NOT in linear order!!
Re: CW RST Issues
Ok, Terry,
Having the suffix is allowed under ADIF specs - but now your idea is to put extra items onto an already bloated 405 element drop-down list? In what order would you recommend?
Do you think CW signals go from 539 to 439 in the 81 steps it takes on that list? If there is polar flutter where should I put the "A" suffix in the list, add another 405 elements?
I know you don't operate CW much, but *please* talk to some CW operators to see how many use the drop down list to select an RST.
How about using a config button or flag that the program can interpret to mean - wait for the user to put in a string themselves?
73,
Larry N1FG
Having the suffix is allowed under ADIF specs - but now your idea is to put extra items onto an already bloated 405 element drop-down list? In what order would you recommend?
Do you think CW signals go from 539 to 439 in the 81 steps it takes on that list? If there is polar flutter where should I put the "A" suffix in the list, add another 405 elements?
I know you don't operate CW much, but *please* talk to some CW operators to see how many use the drop down list to select an RST.
How about using a config button or flag that the program can interpret to mean - wait for the user to put in a string themselves?
73,
Larry N1FG
- G4POP
- Log4OM Alpha Team
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: 21 Jan 2013, 14:55
- Location: Burnham on Crouch, Essex UK
Re: CW RST Issues
Please dont make assumptions about me, they are invariably incorrect
73 Terry G4POP
Re: CW RST Issues
My apologies, Terry, I was assuming that your public log on QRZ was correct.
Of the 1503 QSOs which you logged there since June of 2007 (latest on the 17th of this month) there are only 15 CW QSOs - or 0.9%. Of those 15 only 4 had something other than 599/599 reports.
Again, this is data from your public QRZ log. If the data isn't complete or in error perhaps you are using the wrong logging software! hihi (Just joking...)
73,
Larry N1FG
Of the 1503 QSOs which you logged there since June of 2007 (latest on the 17th of this month) there are only 15 CW QSOs - or 0.9%. Of those 15 only 4 had something other than 599/599 reports.
Again, this is data from your public QRZ log. If the data isn't complete or in error perhaps you are using the wrong logging software! hihi (Just joking...)
73,
Larry N1FG
- G4POP
- Log4OM Alpha Team
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: 21 Jan 2013, 14:55
- Location: Burnham on Crouch, Essex UK
Re: CW RST Issues
N1FG wrote: ↑28 Jan 2023, 12:47 Of the 1503 QSOs which you logged there since June of 2007 (latest on the 17th of this month) there are only 15 CW QSOs - or 0.9%. Of those 15 only 4 had something other than 599/599 reports.
Again, this is data from your public QRZ log. If the data isn't complete or in error perhaps you are using the wrong logging software!
To avoid anyone else from the same missconception I have removed all logging detail from my G4POP QRZ page and will no longer use QRZ as a platform for testing Log4OM.
Users wishing to know my operating preferences and habits should consult me directly, the QRZ biography detail remains accurate.
I further suggest that anyone requiring a manual input of RST data request the feature in the 'Feature requests' area of this forum
73 Terry G4POP