SWFD or RR

[APSN556]

This topic is not intended to start a flame war. I am merely trying to gather a general consensus on what service you use more. Lately I am finding more and more discrepancies between the two, and was curious as to which service you believe to be more accurate.

 

[radioprescott]

I find that SWFD is more accurate at the time of publication. The organization of the data is excellent, and there is much more useful background information that is easily accessible without a computer. But its nature of being a "static" database can gradually make it become outdated, especially in the (relatively) fast moving evolution of public safety radio. I use it primarily for background information.

I find that RR is generally accurate, and the fact that it is an interactive database makes it less likely to be outdated. However, I feel that the open access submission process can make it unreliable at times. Although the page managers exercise good judgment, the anonymous nature of contributors can make some data inaccurate and very frustrating for users who rely on it as "gospel" truth.

I do not want to start a flaming contest either, and I only speak from my own experience: I have found that well researched hardcopy database can be the most accurate, but only for the moment. I find RR can have the most rapid updates, but you have to take the data with that proverbial "grain of salt."

 

[SCPD]

I find that SWFD is more accurate at the time of publication. The organization of the data is excellent, and there is much more useful background information that is easily accessible without a computer. But its nature of being a "static" database can gradually make it become outdated, especially in the (relatively) fast moving evolution of public safety radio. I use it primarily for background information.

I find that RR is generally accurate, and the fact that it is an interactive database makes it less likely to be outdated. However, I feel that the open access submission process can make it unreliable at times. Although the page managers exercise good judgment, the anonymous nature of contributors can make some data inaccurate and very frustrating for users who rely on it as "gospel" truth.

I do not want to start a flaming contest either, and I only speak from my own experience: I have found that well researched hardcopy database can be the most accurate, but only for the moment. I find RR can have the most rapid updates, but you have to take the data with that proverbial "grain of salt."

I agree with all of that. Even though the SWFD can be out of date, the updates provided on their website are made with some regularity. I think the accuracy of both are about the highest I've ever looked at for any radio publication I've run across. I would rather have an outdated SWFD than the uninformed submissions or posts of some who don't know the difference between a repeater output and input frequency, as well as what a remote base station/repeater link frequency is. Then there are all the entries for natural resource agencies with labels for frequencies reading "Rangers." Given the work and titles that natural resource agency employees have, this is a pretty worthless label. This with all due respect to the database administrators on RR. They can't know or catch everything.

Two thumbs up, Dan!

 

[K7TKR]

Note- The SWFD does not depend on me eithor being in an area where my air-card works or being in a wi-fi area. You should add another choice to your list there, that being those who use both.

I like RR and am a very heavy user of the site but, I will never ever give up all my printed freq books ( and I have all of them cepting the northeast guide but who wants to go there anyway). RR is good for us lazy people-having RR means less finger work for me but, the books have info that is just valuable to toss away-and some of that info can't be found here.

As long they keep pumping the books out, I will always be in line to to buy the next one.