Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+error\s+report\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+error\s+report\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] error report (score: 1): Author: Bob Kupps <n6bk@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 02:10:51 -0700 (PDT); Hi I just received my logging error report for the CQ SSB. I am not interested in an accuracy sub-competition as recently discussed but would like to know how I am doing relative to the top stations.; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-04/msg00158.html (7,069 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] error report (score: 1): Author: Oliver Dröse <droese@necg.de>; Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:01:43 +0200; Hi Bob, 0.3% error rate in reports/exchanges sounds a bit high in a contest where just CQ zones are exchanged. On the contrary in a contest with serial numbers like WPX I would rate 0.3% error rate i; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-04/msg00159.html (8,574 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] error report (score: 1): Author: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd@charter.net>; Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 16:55:34 -0500; There is a new blog entry on the CQ WW web site that provides some additional information on error rates for CQ WW SSB 2013. http://cqww.com/blog/?p=283 The average Error Rate for all logs was 3.60%.; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2014-04/msg00164.html (9,031 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]