I had one like that a while back. I'm pretty sure I mentioned on this reflector as something to be aware of. USB and LSB are different enough to cause DXBase to think they are two different qso's.
Personally I'd prefer DXBase to call them SSB or Phone and be done with the difference. I don't think there is any awards specific to USB or LSB that the distinction would be important. Even as anal as I am about my log, this wouldn't be a killer to me. I'd just delete the 'dupe' when I came across it. I wouldn't make a special project out of it. But...I'm sure that this will be an issue for the future. There was no way predict when developing DXB2005 that these types of incorrect data would be passed through LoTW. Unfortunately LoTW was a bit behind schedule and these problems were not available for the beta testing to discover. ----- Original Message ----- From: "William H. Hein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "DXbase Reflector" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:47 AM Subject: [Dxbase] Many, many more Dxbase LoTW import-related dupes found As I scan thru my log book, I am finding lots of these (dupe QSOs created during a LoTW import procedure), all seemingly from the 1995 CQ WW 160m SSB contest, where I made a big effort (over 1000 QSOs). Just noticed that the original loggings all have the exact frequency noted (note frequency, not band which is 160 in both cases) and the mode as LSB. The dupe QSOs, and there are at least a few dozen of them, don't have the frequency field filled in and are all listed as USB. Perhaps this LSB vs. USB thing is the key? The imported QSOs are all noted as USB, which is of course wrong. And LoTW does not distinguish between USB and LSB, listing all SSB QSOs as simply SSB (is this an ADIF standard?). 73, Bill NT1Y _______________________________________________ Dxbase mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dxbase
