Milt Jensen, N5IA wrote:
> > Does this mean that every unique is to be DQed? Or does it mean that you
> > have to identify the unique(s) in a listing on your Summary Sheet?
>
Sean Warner K0XQ wrote:
> If I read it right, a call has to show up in at least 4 logs or it gets
> bounced out.
Whoa! Hold it right there, Pilgrim!
I haven't seen anything in the rules which says "you must show up in at least 4
logs or you don't count".
In fact, if that is so, it takes away a tried-and-true SS tactic of finding
multipliers.
Suppose it's Sunday afternoon and your still missing the "East Iowa" section for
a sweep. But being an old traffic guy, you know where the "East Iowa Traffic
Net" meets, so you head on down to 3.612 MHz and get an exchange from KD0XXX
(#1 A KD0XXX 94 EIA)
for that section. KD0XXX doesn't send in his log. It's likely that no-one else
will work KD0XXX, but it a completely legal exchange, and should not be
bounced. This same situation would be true for those guys who just "wander by"
your run freq and are unique to your log. They should *NOT* be tossed just
because they don't show up in an additional 3 logs!
73, Hans, K0HB
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>From Ken Widelitz" <widelitz@gte.net Sun Mar 7 21:28:43 1999
From: Ken Widelitz" <widelitz@gte.net (Ken Widelitz)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: [Log checking UNSTABLE senders in SS
Message-ID: <008701be68e1$7ab587c0$d4810304@widekenn.gte.net>
I'm sure Tree, N6TR, could address this issue in more detail, but in QCing
Tree's SS checking software, I know that there were stations that changed
what they were sending, sometimes more than once. The software identified
the "unstable" stations and did not delete QSOs with that station for
busting "unstable" exchange parts. The number of logs with "unstable" data
necessary to label a station "unstable" was a variable that Tree played
with. Having listened to my tapes against the error report, which was one of
the QC processes, makes for some interesting observations, which will appear
as a sidebar to Tree's NCJ write-up on the log checking software and
procedures.
The only thing that can be done to make SS log checking more fair and
accurate would be to deduct QSOs with busted info from both logs. I am not
necessarily supporting that change, only observing the strict scutiny logs
have received this year.
Ken Widelitz, K6LA, Ken Six Los Angeles, K6LA@GTEMAIL.NET
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|