Why is my Percentage Quality Locations so low?

[Guest]

I've generally got rather low percentage... but that's probably because I've got a really killer setup.

9db omni antenna, 20db receive amp, and kismet with orinoco card. Kinda cheezes me that my data is "bad" just because it is better than most.

[uhtu]

badness is always relative. its not "bad" per-se.. it just didn't get by the filters.

but no matter how good your rig is, if you're sitting on a hill with a 3m dish and report a point .5 mile from where it actually is (or more to the point, where its been reported by a larger number others), its not a "good" report. :-)

aggregation sites work best in the aggregate.

of course, with a killer setup, you'll get more unique points that other people just don't see.

[Guest]

This is true... I just ran up from Jacksonville,KY to Lexington, KY. I had 3188 networks, with some 1900 new ones... even though I stayed on I-75 most of the way, and some of the area on my "old turf".

Oh yeah, I'm adz133 on the stats.

[uhtu]

heh, so you're not doin' so bad :-)

have you looked over your kismet logs with any of the war* scripts to see if you'd lost gps fix on any of them? i know that's burned a couple folks on long runs (myself included)

[Guest]

yeah, I made sure I didn't lose GPS.

oh well... fun no matter what!

[bobzilla]

I'm debating loosing that stat, since it's not all that informative, and it takes a really really long time to generate since it requires multiple hits to the 25 million+ row location table.

[FLECOM]

ouch!

bet that puts a bit of a load on the database server

[Guest]

Hey flecom! Didn't know you were here...

With a DB that big, and a request that enormous... heheh it might not be a bad idea.