Log Check Experts Confident CW Skimmer Use Can Be Detected

By Jamie Dupree NS3T  radio-sport.net 
Posted May 5, 2008

As contesters wait for announcements on how the use of VE3NEA's CW Skimmer program might be dealt with by various contest committees, one critical question that's sufaced in contest circles is about enforcement.

In other words, if the Skimmer is restricted to the Single Op Assisted cateogry as many expect, will the log checkers be able to figure out that you are using it?

The answer to radio-sport.net seems to be a confident "Yes."

"It is sort of the same problem as determining if someone is using packet," says log checking expert Larry Tyree N6TR.

"Basically - it would be seeing if the activity pattern seems to suggest if spotting assistance is taking place."

"For example, if we find that a high percentage of QSOs occur on mostly random frequencies - and that stations that are new to the band are showing up quickly in the log for a higher than expected percentage - one can start building a case that some kind of spotting assistance is occuring," Tree added.

"Let's put it this way," says Ward Silver N0AX, "to get the full benefit of a skimmer, it is likely that the user will jump around in a manner not greatly different from using spotting network outputs."

"This is easy to distinguish from an SO2R station S&Ping across a band," Silver told radio-sport.net.

"I won't know for sure what a Skimmer log looks like until I see the log of a Skimmer user," said Doug Zwiebel KR2Q, "but I can have a pretty good idea what it might look," that being much like a regular Assisted log.

"If the Single Op wants to use a Skimmer but not leave that signature in their log, they would have to give up most of its value," Silver argues. "So it's kind of a self-correcting problem - to not be detected, you would have to give up the value that made it attractive in the first place."

But not everyone agrees that it would be so easily rooted out by log checkers, since there would be no "spot" that might draw scrutiny after a contest.

"I would see it being very hard to detect a skimmer user from a good SO2R operator," says David Robbins K1TTT.

"Especially a good SO2R operator who also has a radio with a bandscope," he added.

That raises a bit of a red flag for Robbins, who worries that some could be wrongly accused of Skimmer use because of how they work new stations on a second radio.

"A good band scope user could spot these new stations on a band also though so this would have to be checked carefully," said Robbins.

Oddly enough, the advent of the Skimmer may actually bolster post-contest reviews for cheating, by deploying Skimmers and wideband digital recorders in various places around the world, so log checkers could listen "real time" after the contest is over.

"The idea of recording the contest on Time Machines and accumulating the output streams from several strategically located skimmers could be a real boon to log checking," says Silver N0AX.

"I can now go back and check to make sure someone actually QSY'd 5 kHz before CQ'ing again in a Sprint," said Tyree in a post on the CQ-Contest reflector.

There are some who don't want to deal at all with the Skimmer in a contest environment, as a group led by veteran contester Jim Neiger N6TJ circulated an on-line petition against it.

"Although certain technological advancements have been developed and generally accepted by the contest community, Skimmer technology is one we feel should be banned from use in CW Contesting in all categories," read the petition.

"Skimmer, while a technological marvel, has no place in the world of CW contesting," wrote Arthur Trampler K0RO. "Please amend your contest rules to eliminate this option/disqualify those who use it!"

But others have stayed focused on making the Skimmer only a tool of Assisted single ops.

"Anything that makes callsigns and the frequencies they are operating on available to a contester that they did not find themselves on the bands, whether by a piece of automated software or delivered by a third party like packet spotting, is receiving assistance," says Scott Robbins W4PA.

"Using it for an assisted category? Fire away. Looks completely legitimate for that use," Robbins told radio-sport.net.

Other voices though are arguing for a separate category, where other technological question marks for single ops might find a home as well.

"Personally - I think there should be an SO-Unlimited category distinct from SO-Assisted," said Silver N0AX.

Silver would put an in-house Skimmer in "Unlimited," while "Assisted" would be focused on packet spots coming from external sources.

"That's a fundamental difference in my opinion," said Silver.

"In a way - if someone proposed putting skimmers and packet assistance in different categories," said Tree N6TR, "that would greatly diminish our ability to do any kind of enforcement - since the signatures for both are very similar."

You can read previous stories about the CW Skimmer:

Contesters Await Rules Decisions On Use of CW Skimmer Software - April 21, 2008

Uproar In Contest Ranks Swells On CW Skimmer; Contest Rulemaking Efforts Not Resolved - April 28, 2008

Tell us what you think about the CW Skimmer! Should contest rules be changed? Should this be allowed for unassisted ops? Email us at radio-sport.net