This has been a very timely and interesting discussion on
log checking, penalties, and so forth. Following the CQ WW's
lead, many of the major contests are adopting very thorough
(although not foolproof by any means) checking procedures
for a substantial proportion of all submitted logs.
This represents a departure from the past, when only the very
top scores were thoroughly checked. Sadly, in some contests,
virtually no checking was being performed at all.
There is probably no backing down from these new checking
policies, so let me pause from the detailed analyses of specific
NIL reports, etc., and comment on the overall topic of accuracy
that these procedures address.
Here are the "facts" about log accuracy, from the perspective of
someone who has been checking logs for eight years.
Fact #1: Not all contesters are equally accurate
This spread between the accurate and the not-so-accurate (OK,
sloppy) exits at all levels of competition. Important differences
exist between competing for the very highest awards, as well
as those in less closely watched competitions.
The spread is larger on SSB than on CW, for some reason.
It is common to find a situation where two or more stations compete
for, say, a country award, and to see one have a 2 percent UBN
rate and another have a 15 or 20 percent rate.
The inaccuracy comes about, as I see it, in at least three ways.
[1] Sloppy or lazy run techniques
Stations who are CQ-ing simply do not work hard enough to
copy stations who call them on their run frequencies accurately.
This results in a lot of unique and impossible callsigns being
logged.
[2] Sloppy calling techniques
Stations who call in pileups don't take the time to verify that
the CQ-ing station actually came back to them. They double
with the "real" QSO and never realize that the QSO they
are logging didn't take place. Result: NIL.
[3] Miscellaneous
This is a huge category, the encompasses everything from
CQ-ing cross-band situations (40 SSB) where two run
stations share a common listening
frequency, to stations submitting partial logs, to the accidental
entry of corrupt data by a participant. The most common
example of this is the failure to accurately record a band change.
Packet is a huge contributor here as well. It is truly frightening
to see the parade of stations who will inaccurately assume the
veracity of a packet spot.
Fact #2: Some people cheat in contests
I don't want to give this topic any more time than it deserves,
because the numbers are very small. But its a fact that some
people pad their logs, use packet, etc. in ways that are contrary
to the spirit and the letter of the rules.
Fact #3: As a competitor, you can only control the information
that you transmit, and the information you write down.
You cannot control what the other guy does. That's the way it
is. So there will never be any one hundred percent accurate
logs, sorry.
Conclusions:
[1] Log checking has had a favorable impact on competition
In the contests where thorough checking takes place, the situation
where a station can use inaccuracy to gain a competitive edge
has been largely eliminated. If you have QSO rates that are
consistently, say, 10 percent higher than your competition because
you're not asking for fills, then you are going to lose that edge
when
your log is checked.
This benefit has a new cost, unfortunately, but hopefully a
temporary
one. That is the situation where two stations compete in some way
(even for just bragging rights), and one is computer checked and the
other is not.
In the not-so-distant future, computer log submissions will be a
requirement, so that this situation cannot occur. As it is, contest
committees spend hundreds of hours hand entering log information to
reduce the scope of this problem.
[2] The "out-of-box experience" of have your log checked is never
pleasant.
Who likes to see their score reduced? Not me, certainly. The only
thing that eases the pain of having my hands slapped for missing
a call is the knowledge that everyone else is going through the same
thing.
[3] The checking process itself could use improvement
There's nothing wrong with criticizing the process. It doesn't mean
that
you're in favor of inaccurate logs. Yes, volunteers are largely
behind
the scenes. But there is a lot we can all learn in this.
I happen to agree that the 3 penalty QSO deduction employed in many
major contests is out of step with reality. Others may not. This
and
other aspects of checking are worthy of debate.
[4] Improving your accuracy is one of the easiest, cheapest things
you
can do to improve your competitive standing.
No one likes to change, myself included. But if you step back a
moment,
you see that more universal log checking is actually an opportunity.
If you, say, double the length of all of your booms on your yagis,
you
will gain 2 or 3 dB to your signal, and an increase in your contest
scores. For thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of effort.
Spend some time to analyze and learn from your previous mistakes,
and
you might realize that same improvement with nothing other than your
time invested. Think about that.
- Pat
N9RV
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|