[aprssig] Worst Path of the Day

[Robert Bruninga]

Thanks steve,
If you dont want to block the display of the data so that they
are forced to read the warning message about their path
being too long, then, I also liked the idea someone proposed to 
display just a WARNING page first that they have to 
"click-through" to get to the map.

I'd set this limit at any hops above 4, (5-5,6-6,7-7)...
4-4 and even 3-3 is not good in many areas, but I think
most areas 5-5 is just not helpful...   Bob

>>> Steve Dimse <k4hg at tapr.org> 10/27/04 2:12:29 PM >>>
On 10/27/04 at 1:56 PM Robert Bruninga <bruninga at usna.edu> sent:

>>>> k4hg at tapr.org 10/27/04 11:16:03 AM >>>
>> this filtering without education is a poor solution. If the 
>>thesis that findU is the goal of the users is true, and a 
>>user running a bad path looks on findU and doesn't 
>>see himself, what will he do? 
>
>I think something was missed here.  He -will- be on FINDU, 
>but his position will -not- be displayed on a map and
>the map will instead show something like: 
>
>"This position arrived at FINDU via a path that is too long and
>considered in appropriate on the APRS RF system."  For
>more information on the proper use of paths please see:
>     http://educational-web-bage...
>
My post you quote was in response to a proposal to filter bad paths at
the
IGate. In that case, there is no way for findU to post such a message.
The
user's data will simply not arrive at findU.

In my proposal for intervention at findU, to be clear, I will not be
preventing
a position from being seen. I will add a message near the top of the
page in red
stating the path is bad, with the link to the educational page, and the
email
address of the person that volunteers to handle all questions on the
matter.

Wes' page is an excellent start, what is needed is a how-to for each of
the
popular programs, and of course someone to step forward as the point
man.

The ONLY way I would consider blocking data would be if a committee
were formed
to hear complaints of individual ham's paths. The committee would need
to make
an educational effort on any accused ham, if that failed I'd add a
message
stating what had happened and that the users data would be blocked in x
days
unless the path is shortened. Only only if that effort failed would I
would take
the extreme action of blocking an individual ham's data with a message
referring
them back to the committee.

>>This filtering method gives no education to the users, 
>>and no way for me or anyone else to help identify the 
>>problem.
>
>I think the original proposal was not a "filter" but a
>witholding of the FINDU "viewing" ability from those
>users that are abusing RF as a means of getting positive 
>feedback to them.
>
The original proposal was, the reply of mine you quote was in response
to an
IGate blocking proposal.

>It is that positive feedback to the user that is so important
>and what is so frustrating about transmit-only trackers 
>some of which could care less about the RF network as
>long as their packets make it to FINDU...
>
My point, in case it is not completely clear, is I am willing to
participate in
such things to the extent that I am the only person that is capable,
namely
changing the findU programming. For everything else, it MUST be someone
else's
work, and there MUST be someone else to handle the email that will
result.

Steve K4HG