May 3, 2019 at 21:54 #9551HB9TZAParticipant
Hello Andrew and Manfred,
Reading this, posted by Andrew M0YMA in Park-to-Park, 18th of July,2018 on the Blog :
A recurring question is: How are P2P contacts confirmed.
It’s quite simple…
Both logs must be uploaded – we will call them Log A and Log B
A number of fields must match…
The STATION call of Log A must match the HUNTER call of Log B
The STATION call of Log B must match the HUNTER call of Log A
Note: Callsigns are compared after stripping all prefixes and suffixes
The HUNTER REFERENCE in Log A must match the ACTIVATOR REFERENCE in Log B
The HUNTER REFERENCE in Log B must match the ACTIVATOR REFERENCE in Log A, or be empty
Note: Thus only one log needs to claim the P2P for BOTH to be confirmed (if there is a match)
The BAND, MODE and DATE of both Logs must match
The TIME field is only used as a tie-breaker:
If there is only one matching QSO, then it is confirmed without further ado
If there is more than one matching QSO, then TIME must match (± 5 minutes)
Now it seems to me, if I have correctly interpreted it, it will not be necessary anymore to fill the logs with the SIG and MY_SIG Fields.
I used to ask HBFF activators to use FLE or similar or write me a short note with the P2P QSOs.
Following this concepty, I recently asked to Florian HB0/DL8ECA/p , whose HB0 logs did not report some evident P2P , to send me a note with these QSOs, and he answered that he will do, but that he does not write P2P from time, and he got nonetheless the P2P Award confirmed; so demonstrating no use of that addition to logs.
In the doubt, as I still found elsewhere in WWFF site that these are required and no message about ending it, I pleased him to send me these notes so that I’ll complete the logs with that.
Of course, making the P2P check not by log P2P declarations, but by software logic equations or query is always possible, I guess; but in that case please alert of that on these web pages places where it’s required to add P2P on the logs.
Please confirm also if/that it is not necessary anymore to me: it will avoid some pedantic messages of mines that could disturb or irritate the activator, whose logger may not be providing all needed and even have false / wrong adif fields! It happens very often, sorrily. Reading the comments to Andrew’s post will not make it clear anyway.
Just waiting for your answer to correct latest logs, or upload them as they are; thanks!
73 44 ,
Augusto HB9TZAMay 4, 2019 at 05:34 #9552Andrew M0YMAKeymaster
Yes it is required.
The Rules for the award are quite clear… if neither log has a SIG/SIG_INFO tag, then the P2P will not be confirmed.
If one log has them, then it will (probably) be confirmed. Florian was fortunate in that his P2P contacts had CORRECTLY submitted their log.
We have over 12 million QSOs in the database (2019-04-05 05:30utc = 12,227,942)… we do not have the processing power to regularly run 12 million database queries looking for a match.
May 4, 2019 at 06:57 #9554HB9TZAParticipant
- This reply was modified 3 years ago by Andrew M0YMA.
Hello Andrew M0YMA,
thanks for the prompt answer.
I supposed that it were a question of processing power and of opportunity, as continuously run such queries in such a giantic database would require a very lot of numbers crunching!
It is very much easier and simple (and computing power economic) to write two fields more in the log at once.
Many many thanks! I hope to be able to meet you during my next trip to UK and Norwich, Andrew.
73 44 de Augusto, HB9TZA / I2JJR (Maybe soon once again 9H3JR …)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.