User name:

Български Português brasileiro
Bosanski Català
繁體中文 Česky
Dansk Deutsch
English Español
Suomi Français
Ελληνικά Hrvatski
Magyar Italiano
日本語 Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands Norsk
Polski Português
Română Русский
සිංහල Slovenščina
Srpski Svenska
ภาษาไทย Türkçe
Українська 简体中文

Who is online? (23)

LCWO Discussion Forum [Atom LCWO Forum Feed]

This is a simple discussion forum for LCWO users. Feel free to use it for any kind of discussion related to this website.

Thread: What do you think about this?

Back to the Forum


Posted: 2009-08-04 16:31
I've been struggling to relearn the code. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds some characters easier than others. I tried using the fixed code groups to practice just characters that give me grief but I belive there must be a better way. I've been trying to think of a way to dynamically practice just on the difficult characters or character sequences. I think I may have a solution. I was thinking that a multiple pass method may work.

Pass 1: send random code groups.
Pass 2: send just the groups that had errors in pass 1.
Pass 3: send just the groups that had errors in pass 2.

For example:
Pass 1: send 50 code groups. (The initial group count or time should be programmable.)
Check results.
Lets assume there were errors in 20 groups and 30 had no errors.
Pass 2: send 20 code groups (just the groups from pass 1 with errors).
Check results.
Assume there were errors in 12 groups this time.
Pass 3: send the 12 code groups from pass 2.
Repeat the process until there are no errors or the operator wants to start over.

I think this would give a student a way of practicing the characters or sequences of characters that give him difficulty and, I could be wrong, but I don't think it would be too difficult to implement.

What do you think?

Posted: 2009-08-05 02:55
The only problem I can think of is that, when I hit a problem character it slows me down so that I miss a couple of characters after that. I get the hard one, but miss the easy ones after that.

Then again, you said groups rather than specific characters, so it might work.


Posted: 2009-08-05 13:19
Maybe I wasn't clear. I was thinking of resending the "error" groups exactly as they were in the initial pass, so you will have a chance to try that exact group again. There is no sense resending groups that you copy OK.
The big unknown to me is how difficult it would be to implement.

Posted: 2009-08-06 00:15
You should be able to clip the groups and paste into a text file then use the text to CW facility (clipping and pasting your list) to send the "pain" groups.

Posted: 2009-08-10 12:22
Hi Bill,

that's not trivial (i.e. a matter of a few minutes) to implement but maybe something to think about.

I actually think that is better than counting the error percentage for each single letter (difficult to do anyway) and then increase the frequency of those letters.

I'll put it on my (long) todo list...

73, Fabian

Posted: 2009-08-23 21:07
I think you may be getting carried away with the amount of automation needed. At least personally, I don't need to type in anything to know my troublesome characters - simple have all 40 with check boxes, let the user select from them and then generate code ONLY with those, or maybe also have a mode where the troubled chars are heavily weighted in the otherwise random selection. Much easier to implement and I think it serves the same purpose.


Posted: 2009-08-23 22:41
It is already possible to select troublesome characters manually using code groups. I use that but it ONLY sends troublesome characters which is not very realistic. Maybe it's the sequence that is troublesome, long letter, followed by short letter, for example. I also think it is difficult to determine which characters should be weighted because it then becomes necessary to keep some kind of history. Also, when I come across a troublesome character I often mess up one or two afterward, which would muddy the waters. I was thinking that my proposal should be relatively easy to code since the results page already displays the groups with the error count for each group, all that the code needs to do is resend the groups that have an error count greater than zero. There is no requirement for long term storage or complex calculations. But then again we are dealing with a web page, (Java script?) not a stand alone program, so it may not be as easy as I think.

Posted: 2009-08-24 05:38
;-) I see ur point. You are sent say "YEE" and while your brain or hand figures out Y, you miss EE - so actually the failed group might not even reflect the fact that Y was the problem. SO yes a retransmission of the missed sequence is attacking the problem from another direction. I guess my issue is with any of the mechanisms that require typing back my copy - I'd rather spend my time doing copy then reading my handwritten copy and typing it back in. Thanks for the clarification. 73

Posted: 2009-09-18 09:09
A simple but nice feature may just be that LCWO could summarize mistakes made. Example:

After finishing a Codegroup run, LCWO could summarize the letters/figures/characters that were nt copied correctly and how many times that happened.

It would then be up to us to train those, e.g. with the custom character setup.



Posted: 2009-10-02 15:19
As I continue my struggle with the code I happened upon another idea. When I recently moved up to the next character (the number 1 in this case),the new character seemed to be in almost every group, a chance occurance I'm sure. It seemed to help me quite a bit. Perhaps it would help if the most recent character were heavily weighted, a checkbox setting could enable this feature for those who want it.

Posted: 2009-10-03 08:06
I am only on lesson 2 but really enjoy your program. Thanks for the great work.

Posted: 2009-10-21 14:52
I am back on QRG in CW!
LCWO makes this possible.
I´m sooooo happy :-)

mni tnx dr Fabian - good job - great website!!!!

73 de Ron

Back to the Forum

You must be logged in to post a message.

$Id: forum.php 62 2015-01-12 17:34:44Z fabian $