On 4 Nov 98, n6tr@teleport.com wrote:
> > If so, what if XX9XX was running a pileup, answered and worked W3BG,
> > but W3BGN *thought* he was the one being worked and logged the Q.
> > W3BG needed XX9XX for a new one and that is the only QSO he
> > worked...he even has a QSL card to prove it. If, as you say, the
> > QSO was removed from XX9XX's log and left in W3BGN's log, the wrong
> > station is being penalized, no?
>
> This is a good argument for removing the QSO from both logs, in my
> opinion. That is why we went to this in the Internet Sprint. It
> puts responsbility for getting information exchanged correctly
> upon both stations.
In this example, W3BG and XX9XX have correctly exchanged
information...and have QSL cards to prove it. W3BG is a DXer, worked
one Q for a new country and didn't send in his log. Why should XX9XX
lose a QSO?
W3BGN however didn't really work the guy but he doesn't lose the Q in
Doug's example (at least the way I understand it). So 'XX is wrongly
penalized for making a good Q and 'BGN is wrongly rewarded for
botching one. The error is compounded by overly aggressive log
checking.
Unique does not equal bad. Busted call does equal bad.
> You will probably always be able to find one or two cases where the
> "wrong" thing happened... just like during a NBA game.
The NBA is a professional endeavour. Contesting isn't.
> Yes - it is only a hobby, but there are people working VERY hard
> to try and improve the significance of the scores.
The scores today are no more significant to me than the scores of 30
years ago...at least not because of the large amount of analysis done
by the contest committee.
73 de Lee
--
Lee Hiers - AA4GA
Cornelia, GA
mailto:aa4ga@contesting.com
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|