I remember N3FJP's program used to yell "DUPE" out the speakers and prevent
you from logging one. I'm not sure if this has been changed in more recent
versions. Worked a station during SSB who said I was a dupe and refused to
log me; I could hear N3FJP yelling "DUPE" in the background on his end. Not
working dupes was a good way to keep your paper log nice and clean, but
computers take care of that problem nicely these days.
--
Mike DeChristopher, N0HI
http://www.n0hi.net
telnet://cluster.n0hi.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "K1TTT" <K1TTT@ARRL.NET>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Backwards thinking in log checking
> First, as you should know, there is no way for a log submitter to mark a
> 'dupe' in a Cabrillo log... nor to mark points, nor to mark multipliers.
> So
> your question really goes to how the sponsor processes the log to match up
> qso's and determine NIL. As I understand it most sponsors use a method
> that
> if any qso matches between the logs then there is a match and no penalty
> for
> the dupes... there might be a very few exceptions for those contests where
> exchanges have to match exactly in both logs for both stations to get
> credit.
>
> So the key is for all entrants to always log dupes. That should be the
> one
> and only key point... one which some stations still refuse to acknowledge.
> During CQWW SSB we had a several minute argument with a Caribbean
> operation
> who said we were a dupe and refused to give us a report or log us again
> even
> though he was definitely not in our log. He of course would have saved
> himself a NIL+penalty+lost time arguing if he had just logged us again.
>
>
> David Robbins K1TTT
> e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
> web: http://www.k1ttt.net
> AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tree [mailto:tree@kkn.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 20:32
>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Backwards thinking in log checking
>>
>>
>> Recently - I had to review some of the log checking process that is being
>> used for the ARRL Sweepstakes contest and came to an interesting
>> conclusion.
>>
>> For purposes of log checking - it is best to "dupe" the log starting at
>> the
>> end of the log and working your way towards the start of it.
>>
>> So - if a log has two QSOs with K7RAT in it - the one that occurred later
>> in
>> the contest will be the "QSO" and the one that occurred first will be the
>> "dupe".
>>
>> (There is one exception to this - so make sure you read to the end of
>> this
>> message before getting too excited).
>>
>> There are lots of reasons that you might have a dupe in your log. Some
>> examples are:
>>
>> 1. The first QSO you made didn't make it into the other person's log for
>> some reason and he wants to work you again. Maybe his computer crashed
>> and
>> he lost his log and he had to start the contest over.
>>
>> 2. Maybe the station got your callsign wrong the first time you worked
>> and
>> he doesn't think you are a dupe OR he has your callsign wrong now and
>> wants
>> to work you again.
>>
>> 3. You had his callsign wrong, thought it was a new QSO, but figured out
>> his correct callsign during the QSO, but logged it since a QSO had taken
>> place. Some stations will just work you again if you call and not tell
>> you they think you are a dupe.
>>
>> It is important to realize that having dupes in your log isn't a problem.
>> If you make a QSO, you should put it in your log - even if it isn't a
>> dupe.
>>
>> The traditional way to "dupe a log" is to start at QSO number one and
>> enter
>> every call into a dupesheet. If you later find you are trying to enter a
>> callsign into the dupesheet that is already there - then this second QSO
>> is a "DUPE" and should be marked as such and not counted in the contest.
>>
>> I am proposing the new way to dupe a log is to actually start at the end
>> of the log when making the dupe sheet. This does some things which I
>> believe
>> make the log checking process "better":
>>
>> 1. It is deterministic and easy to program and explain.
>>
>> 2. If someone loses their log - the QSO that occurs later is the one that
>> will match up if you are doing a cross check.
>>
>> 3. If someone thought for whatever reason that the first QSO didn't
>> happen,
>> again, this second QSO is the one that will line up.
>>
>> 4. If someone busted you call the first time they worked you, then this
>> second QSO will line up. I feel that it is more likely that they will
>> have your information correct the second time they work you - although I
>> can't prove that.
>>
>> This means that if you decide to log a station the second time, you
>> should
>> not assume that this second QSO won't be checked and it isn't important
>> to get the information correct. This second QSO is most likely going to
>> be the one that does get checked.
>>
>> The one exception goes like this. If you do work a dupe, sometimes, the
>> person might go through the motions of making the QSO - but after they
>> realize it is a dupe, they might wipe the QSO out of their log. This
>> means
>> you could get a not-in-log for the second QSO. If the log checking does
>> find a not-in-log - the "right thing" to do would be to look to see if
>> there is another QSO with the same station in your log (which will occur
>> earlier in the contest) and if so - use that QSO for a second cross
>> check. In this case the QSO that took place will be marked as the dupe
>> and the QSO that occurred first will be checked.
>>
>> This might all seem pretty complicated, but there are some simple
>> takeaways
>> that you can follow:
>>
>> 1. Don't worry about logging dupes. This is normal.
>>
>> 2. If you do log a dupe - take care and make sure you get the information
>> correct. Do not assume that your second QSO won't be checked because it
>> isn't a dupe.
>>
>> 3. If you complete a two way exchange with someone in the contest, it
>> should
>> appear in your log. Please log it even if you know it is a dupe.
>>
>> 73 Tree N6TR
>> tree@kkn.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|