In general, I side with Tree on the way the logs are
being analyzed and I really enjoyed finding out what
mistake I made and truly appreciate the work he has done
to make this all better. However, I think Jim's point
here is valid.
In my log, 4.1% error rate, had 8 busted callsigns out
of 1180 or so and I don't remember "guessing" at any of
them. I copied them wrong plain and simple. It was not
a conscious decison to do so, but an error in copying.
In fact, in many cases, I asked for numerous repeats
when I was unsure of the call. In these cases, I should
have been unsure but was not. Does this mean that even
when you think you have it right, you should check it
again and ask for a repeat ? Where would it end ?
Shouldn't just no credit be enough ? I don't understand
the penalty part any longer. Having any of them removed
is penalty enough for me. If there is a log that
demonstrates a wilful disregard for getting the calls or
information right, then perhaps a penalty should be
imposed up to and including DQ.
With the comprehensive system now analyzing the logs,
anyone "padding" the log with bad QSOs will be caught
and in my opinion should be DQed. What's the threshold
for determining when a guy is padding ? I'm not sure,
but I would think it would place him far above average
in bad qsos.
73,
Bob N5NJ (ck 73)
--
N5NJ / V26O
Plano, TX USA
ex KR2J, V26RN, W6V, WA2OVE
>
> > I'm old enough (CK 64) to remember the 1 point SS qso, although I can't
> > remember actually having had any such contacts. I suspect that few people
> > claimed them, but rather put down whatever they thought they had copied
> > knowing that mistakes would never be caught by a logchecker with a desk
> > overflowing with paper logs.
>
> I remember logging some of them and my check is "67".
>
> > With today's computerized checking, dupes and busted calls can be routinely
> > and easily detected. While high unique callsign rates may flag a log for
> > closer inspection, I see no reason for additional penalty qsos to be
> > subtracted for dupes or bad calls.
>
> I think there needs to be some kind of penalty for any busted information.
> This provides incentive to either get it right, or not put it in log.
>
> Without some kind of penalty, you have no reason not to guess, because
> the worst thing that will happen is that you just lose the QSO.
>
> I am confident that this rule will be changed for next year, so there
> is some kind of penalty for any busted information. Perhaps the 3
> QSO penalty will be reduced for busted callsigns since the detection
> methods are so much more efficient.
>
> I also think dupe penalties for electronic logs make no sense.
>
> 73 Tree N6TR
> tree@contesting.com
>
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|