Regarding Observation 1968797 …
Was hoping for some advice on how I should vet this one? Its really faint so not sure.
Also related to that if you get data but can’t see anything in the waterfall and think its a mistake should you vet it as bad?
Yes, there is clearly no signal here, so the observation should be marked as bad.
The data packet that was decoded is definitely a false decode. This is due to the increased sensitivity of the newer FSK demod flowgraph, which seems to be a bit too sensitive, and is resulting in more false decodes. @surligas has a change in progress which tweaks this a bit to reduce false decodes.
False decodes, plus the observation being marked ‘good’ on receipt of any packet is an ongoing problem, particularly with CW and APT observations, but more recently with FSK observations too.
@vk5qi, thanks, I will mark the one as bad.
For this one which has a faint signal any advice if this should be good or bad?
My advice would be to look at previous ‘good’ observations of the sat and see if the signal you see has similar characteristics.
For example, here’s all the recent ‘good’ observations for ENDUROSAT-1: https://network.satnogs.org/observations/?future=0&good=1&bad=0&unvetted=0&failed=0&norad=43551
Unfortunately there aren’t that many recent observations, and it looks like there are lot of observations there incorrectly vetted as good. I’ve had a look through a few and re-vetted some, but in pretty much all of them i’ve just seen local noise.
@vk5qi, ok cheers makes sense.