Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Some\s+thoughts\s+on\s+uniques\,\s+was\:\s+99\%\s+of\s+uniques\s+are\s+busted\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Some thoughts on uniques, was: 99% of uniques are busted (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:19:40 -0400
While I would agree that a unique is not a reason for busting a call, I would also agree that most of them are busted. But some possible reasons otherwise might be: The person who fires up the rig an
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-08/msg00077.html (8,553 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Some thoughts on uniques, was: 99% of uniques are busted (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:21:04 -0400
During the 1984 ARRL DX contest, I heard FG7CM calling CQ. Being this was my first time "solo," I called him, only to find that he wasn't in the contest. Still, he was kind enough to give me a QSO, w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-08/msg00082.html (8,443 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Some thoughts on uniques, was: 99% of uniques are busted (score: 1)
Author: "Randy Thompson" <k5zd@charter.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:04:51 -0800
If you were the only person (of those who submitted a log) to work that call then it would show up as a unique. But, that doesn't mean that it would be removed from your log (or score). When you look
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-08/msg00083.html (10,373 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Some thoughts on uniques, was: 99% of uniques are busted (score: 1)
Author: "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:28:12 -0800
My understanding is that it would NOT get automatically bounced in any contest, but that if that one Q "put you over the top" of another competitor, that it would be "hand massaged" to determine if l
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-08/msg00084.html (8,975 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Some thoughts on uniques, was: 99% of uniques are busted (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 06:50:28 -0400
They don't seem to have done so this time at ARRL - I lost credit for every unique (7 I think, not counting busted calls)), including at least 5 that are confirmed to be active calls by QRZ. 73, Pete
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-08/msg00087.html (8,722 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Some thoughts on uniques, was: 99% of uniques are busted (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:14:56 -0400
At the risk of being called "old fashioned", if he was in your log, and not an obvious bust (i.e. another call sign having worked you at that time, than I would assume that you are an Amateur and a g
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-08/msg00088.html (9,320 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Some thoughts on uniques, was: 99% of uniques are busted (score: 1)
Author: "Bill Tippett" <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:14:11 -0400
N4ZR: They don't seem to have done so this time at ARRL - I lost credit for every unique (7 I think, not counting busted calls)), including at least 5 that are confirmed to be active calls by QRZ. De
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-08/msg00089.html (9,944 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Some thoughts on uniques, was: 99% of uniques are busted (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:05:58 -0400
Here's mine: ... 1474746 Claimed score 1450251 Final score -1.7% Score reduction 47 (2.4%) duplicates 7 (0.4%) calls copied incorrectly 3 (0.2%) exchanges copied incorrectly 0 (0.0%) not in log 10 (0
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-08/msg00090.html (9,545 bytes)

9. [CQ-Contest] Some thoughts on uniques, was: 99% of uniques are busted (score: 1)
Author: saul_abrams@dps.state.ny.us
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:07:05 -0400
I checked my LCRs for every ARRL DX test back to 2003 and never had a unique removed. 73 Saul K2XA _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com ht
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-08/msg00091.html (7,334 bytes)

10. [CQ-Contest] Some thoughts on uniques, was: 99% of uniques are busted (score: 1)
Author: saul_abrams@dps.state.ny.us
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:57:54 -0400
Pete, No, you did not lose qsos for your uniques. There is a one qso penalty for each busted call, so you lost 14 qsos for your 7 busted calls. Saul K2XA _____________________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-08/msg00095.html (7,307 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Some thoughts on uniques, was: 99% of uniques are busted (score: 1)
Author: George Fremin III <geoiii@kkn.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:27:33 -0700
Just because it is a vaild issued callsign does not mean that it is not unique to a given log nor does it mean that the callsign was logged correctly. -- George Fremin III - K5TR geoiii@kkn.net http:
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-08/msg00097.html (9,000 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Some thoughts on uniques, was: 99% of uniques are busted (score: 1)
Author: "Randy Thompson" <k5zd@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:24:44 -0800
7 miscopied calls lose the 7 + 7 more as penalty = -14 3 busted exchanges (no additional penalty) = -3 Total reduction is 17 QSOs. Nothing to do with uniques. The LCR is a bit misleading. DR4M was a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-08/msg00103.html (11,457 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu