Okay, Paul, we have been listening to your rant for years now. How about
posting
your UBN report to the world, so we can judge for ourselves ? Anyone can now
download your log at http://cqww.com/cwlogs/n4xm/, so you don't need to post
that.
And, as usual, you are confusing the Cabrillo format of the log submission with
the log adjudication process.
73,
Steve, N2IC
N4XM Paul D. Schrader wrote:
> Andrei,
>
> Contrary to what others have told you, their Cabrillo logging system system
> is defective.
>
> They have not responded to me after I pointed out their errors.
>
> See below:
>
> Bob (K3EST) and others,
>
>
> I have reviewed the UBN report for N4XM and have found 6 significant errors.
>
> The log checking process is not correct and its quality is further reduced by
> the use of the defective Cabrillo system.
>
> If I accept what your UBN says for certain contacts:
>
> 1) My 160M zone multipliers have been incorrectly reduced by one. The
> deleted contact zone is covered by another contact. 10 zones (not 9)
> as submitted is the correct number.
>
> 2) My 80M zone multipliers have been incorrectly reduced by one. The
> deleted contact zone is covered by another contact. 20 zones (not 19)
> as submitted is the correct number.
>
> 3) My 40M zone multipliers have been incorrectly reduced by one. The
> deleted contact zone is covered by another contact. 27 zones (not 26)
> as submitted is the correct number.
>
> 4) My 20M zone multipliers have been incorrectly reduced by one. The
> deleted contact zone is covered by another contact. 31 zones (not 30)
> as submitted is the correct number.
>
> 5) For an uncheckable reason the QSO points for 20M is 2 points too low.
> Should be 660 points (not 658). I suspect that your error may be tied to
> the 25 Nov 1837Z contact with KP4EJ. My logging program and latest
> database info showed this contact as zero contact points originally.
> But this was incorrect as KP4EJ definitely sent zone 8 and I corrected
> the error. My log shows zone 8 not by mistake but on as an on purpose
> correct correction. Note that my original number was 720 points.
>
> 6) For an uncheckable reason the QSO points for 15M is 5 points too low.
> Should be 587 (not 582). Note that my original number was 619 points.
>
> My summary should then be:
>
> band points zones ctys
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> 160 43 10 13
> 80 247 20 48
> 40 688 27 88
> 20 660 31 93
> 15 587 26 87
> 10 99 12 22
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Total 2324 126 351
>
> Final score: 2324 x (126+351)=1,108,548
>
> Note that this is 12,607 points greater than your 1,095,941 shown in your
> UBN report and includes your UBN contact penalties.
>
> (My original submitted claimed score was 1,203,248.)
>
> Let me remind you that I sent a complete log via postal mail as well as the
> e-mail Cabrillo file.
>
>
> Please correct my score before publishing.
>
>
> COMMENTS
>
>
> Many millions of dollars and hours are spent for amateur radio contesting. I
> appreciate the problems with your log checking costs but that is not
> acceptable because you have accepted a defective system (Cabrillo) and
> do not charge for log checking (as is done for DXCC).
>
> Let me suggest that you charge a reasonable amount for log checking and that
> those who contribute be in a separate "Logs Checked" category. All others
> belong in an "Unchecked Category" which would save you a large amount of
> time and money. And in all cases the Cabrillo log checking system is not an
> acceptable method.
>
> CQ is to be congratulated for including the scores in your magazine. You
> have some excellent contests and I hope you grab the chance to elevate
> their status by requiring major improvements in reporting and log checking
> as I am suggesting AT NO COST TO YOU.
>
> I have been contesting for many years and just recently put together enough
> info to realize how defective the Cabrillo system really is. I am trying to
> improve the system. See other comments below.
>
> 73
>
> Paul N4XM
>
>
> Jim K8JE (ARRL Great Lakes Director),
>
> Good to talk to you at Dayton.
>
> Attached are my Cabrillo related electronic files you requested.
>
> The situation may be worse than I have indicated. A forum I attended said
> that logs were changed and modified at times by the checkers; and that
> call signs were sometimes changed also. Unbelievable!
>
> I believe the Hudson Division director, Frank Fallon, was present when
> this was stated, but I'm not sure. So I am sending a copy of this
> message to Frank. Check with him.
>
> It looks to me that the entire process should have a high level A to Z review.
> And the members should be allowed to comment at some point.
>
> There should be an existing document, approved by several high level
> administrative officers, that states the details of the present process. I
> bet
> one doesn't exist.
>
> Jim, your interest is appreciated.
>
> Please keep me informed.
>
> 73
>
> Paul N4XM PE LM
>
>
> THE
>
> CABRILLO
>
> LOGGING
>
> SYSTEM
>
>
>>From e-mails I have sent to others:
>
> Gentlemen,
>
>>From an informed source, and other information,
> this is the way Cabrillo really is:
>
> ________________________________________________
>
>> I understand there is no need (indeed, no provision)
>> to indicate a score for individual QSOs, or to flag
>> any as dupes or multipliers.
>>
>> I understand the Claimed-Score field is for guidance
>> only, and that logs are re-scored independently and
>> in a consistent manner by the contest organisers.
>
> ________________________________________________
>
>
> Please note that the word used is "consistent", not "correct".
> Others apparently equate the two; I don't.
>
> And questions exist related to how uniques are handled.
> And are RS/RST submissions checked?
>
> It would seem to me that the log submitter should be
> responsible for submitting a complete, accurate, scored log.
> But that is not the system for Cabrillo.
>
> And from what great source does the checking sponsor have
> THE correct info to use with the Cabrillo system?
>
> The Cabrillo system never even knows when the submitter
> may have different, and perhaps more correct, info (multiplier,
> or contact points, as examples).
>
> Manual and non-Cabrillo electronic loggers are allowed, but
> required to submit to an entirely different standard.
> This is BS.
>
> It seems to me that only one party should be held
> responsible for an accurate, complete, duped and scored log,
> and that the submitter should be the party responsible.
>
> I also believe ALL should be required to submit complete,
> and accurate, info and scores.
>
> The rules should clearly state what is to be submitted and
> ALL should be required to submit it ALL ACCURATELY, or a
> penalty should be imposed. ALL required submission should
> be checked. (I understand checking limitations.)
>
> With the Cabrillo system not just my effort but that of many
> others is the issue here. For example, the guys that keep the
> country lists up to date are wasting their time.. Updating the
> logging programs with this info is a waste of time. Marking
> dups is a waste of time. The effort to submit an accurate score
> is apparently a waste of time.
>
> I'm very very unhappy that we were never told about this up
> front, were never given an opportunity to comment on it
> before it was adopted, etc.; and have wasted thousands
> of hours doing stuff because we didn't know the screwed
> up system. The people doing the updates for the logging
> program country lists that have no value with Cabrillo
> should really be pissed.
>
> The contest sponsors and logging programs using Cabrillo
> should stop using it. The contest sponsors owe the
> contest community a giant written apology.
>
> I know some don't agree, but after many decades of
> contesting I feel I have earned the right to inform others,
> express my opinion, and ask for change. And an apology.
>
> 73
>
> Paul N4XM (ex W4BCV)
>
>
> The present Cabrillo system and the deletion of contest results from the
> pages of QST shows that the board of directors has not been interested
> in providing a high integrity contest system. DXCC, although not perfect,
> is an example of a high integrity system. Why aren't the contesters
> entitled to a similar high integrity system?
>
> I have spent most of my ham career contesting, but the administrative
> tricks being used by ARRL and others, really turns me off. We are
> dumbing it down, killing the integrity, and providing poor presentation
> of the results. It shouldn't be this way. Look at the DXCC system as
> an example of how to improve.
>
> 73
>
> Paul N4XM PE LM
>
>
> Cabrillo does not convey or require all information. The contest sponsors
> are only using what is submitted by the Cabrillo file, determining things
> (right or wrong), and scoring the logs. Their "consistent" method does
> not mean a "correct" method.
>
> Most of the contest logging programs do a decent job BUT their database
> information must be correct. Many contests I participate in when I use
> computer logging require significant effort by me to correct their database.
> When these programs and paper submissions are used for full
> submission, full information is provided.
>
> But all the information developed by the contest logging programs (right or
> wrong) is not conveyed in the Cabrillo system; individual QSO score is not
> provided, dups and multipliers are not flagged. And because of this
> Cabrillo submitted logs are evaluated and scored by the contest organizers
> using THEIR system and THEIR database information.
>
>
> Here is what to do.
>
> 1) Publish in CQ and QST how Cabrillo really works. ALL ARE ENTITLED
> TO KNOW. (I spent a lot of effort determining how it works. Most don't
> know. We should have been told.)
>
> 2) Change the rules to require the same submission information for all
> acceptable submission methods. Penalize the same for errors.
>
> 3) Make all present Cabrillo system submissions "ASSISTED" class since
> individual QSO scores are not provided, dups and multipliers are not
> flagged, and logs are scored by the contest organizers.
>
> 4) With time develop an improved computerized system, eliminating the
> present flaws/ideas as I have discussed. Improve the integrity of the
> system. Provide a conduit for submitter input as to what he/she thinks
> is correct, which the present Cabrillo system does not provide.
> Eliminate "by sponsor" scoring.
>
> The above items are really quite simple. Why don't we do them?
>
> 73
>
> Paul N4XM PE LM
>
>
> There are many items other than just limited Cabrillo information.
>
> 1) The fact that we were not advised as to how the Cabrillo system works.
> This has caused a lot of non used work by unknowing submitters.
> There is no excuse for not having advised us as to how it works.
>
> 2) The fact that other submission methods are allowed but require
> additional information/effort. Not a level playing field.
>
> 3) The sponsors "official database" is secret and not available and the
> accuracy of it therefore is questionable. And why is it not made available?
>
> 4) The score is requested in the Cabrillo system but is useless
> information since the log is rescored by the sponsor when the Cabrillo
> system is used.
>
> 5) With the Cabrillo system some of the information to develop the final
> score is actually supplied by the sponsor and not by the submitter. Wrong.
> Wrong. Wrong.
>
> 6) AT THE BEST IT IS AN ASSISTED CATEGORY.
>
> 73
>
> Paul N4XM
>
>
> If you are not that active in contesting you may not know that the
> country files which are used to determine multipliers must often be updated
> within the logging programs. These files are really the info to determine
> multipliers and contact scores. This is a continuing time consuming job
> and I find that even using the latest information they are many times not
> correct, requiring a major effort on my part to determine the real situation
> and correct the files.
>
> But have no fear. I have learned that since the Cabrillo system doesn't pass
> this information to the sponsor it doesn't need to be correct. So why waste
> your time really knowing what is going on and providing an accurate total
> score? (This is part of the dumbing down.) Of course the information that
> the Cabrillo system actually uses is that which is supplied by the sponsor's
> wizards. This is used by the sponsors "assisting" you in log scoring
> (actually DOING the log scoring). It may not be correct either. And since
> it is secret, who knows????????????
>
> And isn't this an "ASSISTED" category?
>
> This is one of my major complaints. You are not passing what you know
> about the multipliers/contact scores to the sponsor because there is no
> method to do so within the Cabrillo system. Any score you develop is
> useless to the sponsor. There is no penalty for dups in the Cabrillo file
> and there is no penalty for an incorrect multiplier, etc. (since you are not
> supplying multipliers/contact scores within the Cabrillo system, and dups
> are not marked). There is no penalty for an inaccurate total score
> submission since the sponsor essentially ignores your total score. Before
> Cabrillo and with all other present submission methods you supply this
> information to your best ability and penalties are issued if incorrect.
> Again note the "dumbing down".
>
> NOTE THIS: With the Cabrillo system you as a contestant have no way of
> determining what the actual final score will be even if you have a zero
> defect copy situation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! True even if you have wasted
> your time and
> made a perfect country file (which the Cabrillo system never even knows
> about).
>
> I wish to quote a statement presently on the ARRL DXCC blog:
>
> "The ARRL DXCC Branch has spent many thousands of man-hours over the
> years checking cards and making every effort to maintain the integrity of the
> DXCC program. Most DXers would have it no other way. When we were
> considering rule changes back in the late nineties, many DXers went out of
> their way to comment to the effect that we should never compromise on
> integrity."
>
> The contest oriented hams are apparently second class citizens.
> I'm trying to change that.
>
> I do think it is unethical to have the different submission information
> requirements that exist for different submission methods.
>
> But when the Cabrillo system is not classed as "Assisted"
> category it is definitely unethical.
>
> I also think the integrity is definitely affected with the present
> Cabrillo System.
>
> The secrecy aspects also leave a very bad image.
>
> The fact that we have not been told how the Cabrillo system works, is
> definitely unethical.
>
> It is a poorly done, poorly implemented system.
>
> It is a major effort to seriously enter a big contest. I have been there:
> Top Ten USA, 4 consecutive years, 96 hour ARRL Phone DX Contests,
> from Kentucky (as W4BCV). From a small subdivision lot.
>
> We deserve better.
>
> I encourage others to complain to ARRL and CQ also.
>
>
> 73
>
> Paul N4XM PE LM
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|