OLC - Action Needed

This OLC validation problem affects us all by turning
away a large proportion of participants and thus devaluing
the meaning of the contest.

I have sent the following e-mail to
and copied it to to see if we can get
some corrective action. I would encourage all other
participants to do the same.

Ian

'There is a most serious problem affecting OLC 2006.
A high proportion of
flights are being rejected as invalid, although there
is no reason to think
this is anything but a validation software deficiency.

For example, on Sunday 2 April, 14 out of 43 US flights
over 50 km were
rejected. Internationally, 25 out of 152 were rejected.
These include
flights by experienced OLC pilots who are accustomed
to the upload
procedures.

Rejection rates of this magnitude call into question
the validity of the
entire competition and undermine its intent to encourage
participation.

Please fix the problem. It would also be equitable
to reinstate all flights
wrongly rejected since the beginning of the OLC season.

Sincerely,

Ian Cant'

Response from an email I sent to Dennis..


We have a team of volunteers working on the problem
with the older Cambridge loggers and the OLC. They
tell me that they think they have a fix identified
and in the works....so, stand by. Our goal is to make
it easy for everyone to participate in OLC

Yes, the OLC will die unless something is done. Anyone out there
interested in starting an OLC competitor?

I already sent an email to the OLC, but to . What
is their correct email address?


Ian Cant wrote:
This OLC validation problem affects us all by turning
away a large proportion of participants and thus devaluing
the meaning of the contest.

I have sent the following e-mail to
and copied it to to see if we can get
some corrective action. I would encourage all other
participants to do the same.

Ian

'There is a most serious problem affecting OLC 2006.
A high proportion of
flights are being rejected as invalid, although there
is no reason to think
this is anything but a validation software deficiency.

For example, on Sunday 2 April, 14 out of 43 US flights
over 50 km were
rejected. Internationally, 25 out of 152 were rejected.
These include
flights by experienced OLC pilots who are accustomed
to the upload
procedures.

Rejection rates of this magnitude call into question
the validity of the
entire competition and undermine its intent to encourage
participation.

Please fix the problem. It would also be equitable
to reinstate all flights
wrongly rejected since the beginning of the OLC season.

Sincerely,

Ian Cant'

Stewart Kissel wrote:
Response from an email I sent to Dennis..


We have a team of volunteers working on the problem
with the older Cambridge loggers and the OLC. They
tell me that they think they have a fix identified
and in the works....so, stand by. Our goal is to make
it easy for everyone to participate in OLC

Why not go back to last year's rule, which is that a file that fails
security gets a red mark, but still counts in the standings? If this
was done retroactively, it would change around the standings some, but
the new standings would correctly reflect the flights made this OLC year.

Please be polite when communicating your desires and concerns to the
OLC folks.

If you get really frustrated you can ask for a refund.

2NO

Gentle, but persistent urging to fix the interface makes the most sense
to me. The community is too small to support multiple OLC's.

That said, there are some real and persistent problems. In the past
two weeks, I've had a 300k plus flight up the Owens scored at 84 k. On
Saturday I posted a flight and had the validation fail. I removed it
and went through EXACTLY the same process and it took the second time.

I'm sure these and other problems can be fixed. Also, it would seem to
me that the programmers at SeeYou, StrePla and WinPilot would have some
incentive to make their products interface seamlessly with the OLC;
which ever one of them succeeds would, IMHO, have a real competitive
advantage.

Ray Warshaw
1LK

tuno,

Your email suggest that the OLC is free. It definitely is not! Ask
the manufacture's and software developers whose logos are on their
site. I believe the going rate is $1500 to $2000 per year or maybe $0
depending on who you are. They are also charging the SSA a fee.

Richard

wrote:
Please be polite when communicating your desires and concerns to the
OLC folks.

If you get really frustrated you can ask for a refund.

2NO

Richard,

Your email suggest that the OLC is free.

It does, and it is.

It definitely is not!

You are surely smoking something good!

OLC is like a free newspaper. You don't pay a thing to be its consumer.
The advertisers who pay to make it possible to so as a voluntary
investment, for which they hope to get a return.

I did something similar to OLC for years and the reason I quit was
because of whining crybabies who complained too much about what they
weren't paying a dime for. I love the OLC and I don't want to see the
same thing happen to them.

~ted/2NO

wrote:
Richard,

Your email suggest that the OLC is free.

It does, and it is.

It definitely is not!

You are surely smoking something good!

OLC is like a free newspaper. You don't pay a thing to be its consumer.
The advertisers who pay to make it possible to so as a voluntary
investment, for which they hope to get a return.

I think the point is that the OLC is a money-making venture, and thus
the OLC people are not volunteers doing this for free. Also, regarding
the free newspaper that collects advertising revenue -- if it could be
improved in certain respects, you would not point this out to the
editors due to the fact that it was free to you?


I did something similar to OLC for years and the reason I quit was
because of whining crybabies who complained too much about what they
weren't paying a dime for. I love the OLC and I don't want to see the
same thing happen to them.

I think we all like the OLC. It is just that some of us are concerned
that it will not fulfill its potential unless changes are made.


~ted/2NO

Check my original comment, it says "If you get really frustrated you
can ask for a refund". I was making no direct comment about whether the
OLC folks are in it for the money; I was attempting to suggest that one
shouldn't complain carelessly about what one gets for free, or else you
run the risk of chasing it away, and you end up with zilch, zip, zero,
nada.

I viewed Ian's original complaint as a little borderline -- valid,
potentially, but lacking in technical detail and approaching the "wah,
wah, wah!" tone a little too closely for my comfort.

Long live OLC!

~ted/2NO