NAA01101
Sender: owner-cq-contest@contesting.com
Precedence: bulk
X-List-Info: http://www.contesting.com/cq-contest-faq.html
X-Sponsor: W4AN, KM3T, N5KO & AD1C
I heard a few people talk about sending in a printout log, because of
not wanting their logs to get lost like the email logs. There was a
perception that the paper stuff doesn't get lost (??).
There are two "error processes".
One is passing validation. Make sure it's correct. If incorrect, it's
not accepted. Qso's are zero-pointed or dropped. In a computer
generated log, those inconsistencies are dropped by the submitter,
which can be validated by the submitter (essentially dupes, a very few
miscellaneous other things). We don't apply penalties for stuff we
voluntarily drop ourselves.
Another is penalties. This implies something careless, wrong, and
punishable took place. Or some would say a guessing dis-incentive.
There is a better way: TWO-WAY ACCURACY BONUS. A reward given BOTH
stations ONLY when a qso is completely accurate BOTH ways.
Under this system, a station sending CW with the first dit clipped off
will not gain much bonus, as would not a station sending audio so
badly clipped that stations are having difficulty copying, as would
not a station whose operating practices made copy difficult or made
getting fills and corrections difficult.
Save penalties for stuff that ought to be punished.
Just my .02c
On Mon, 10 May 1999 12:20:08 -0400, you wrote:
>
>I don't like the 3 for 1 busted call penalty, either. Needs to be updated
to
>be more
>in line with current log checking techniques. But change my method of log
>submission because of it ????
>
>C'mon, folks - send in the %^*& electronic log! Having been a log checker I
>know what
>a *pain* it is to type a log in. Especially when you are reading off of a
>computer printout - which means you are wasting time typing something in
>that came from a
>computer !
>Sure, there are still "true" paper logs out there from parts of the world,
>but not too
>many [top scores] any more.
>
>In the case of someone submitting a computer printout but no electronic
file
>I would
>like to see the major contest sponsors simply scan the log in, so it can be
>processed
>just like the rest of the electronic logs. Errors introduced by this
process
>are at the risk of the entrant. End of story.
>
>Is my error rate as low as I would like ? No, it could be better. Cost me a
>shot at a record last year. Hats off guys like K1TO, K4BAI and N2IC who all
>had reductions <1.5%.
>But MY error rate is pretty decent. And more important it's acceptable to
>ME. Don't really care what the rest of the world thinks about it.
>
>73
>
>Jeff N5TJ
73, Guy
--. .-..
Guy Olinger, K2AV
k2av@qsl.net
Apex, NC, USA
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|