In a message dated 8/12/99 12:35:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sdelling@facstaff.wisc.edu writes:
> Isn't the real purpose of log checking to reward ACCURACY? Sure, it also
> discourages deliberate padding, but is that really a big problem?
ACCURACY is expected, it is not a reward. Otherwise there would be extra
points by the log checkers for getting it right.
The problem I see with the current process is that it is not complete, has
too many loopholes for possible mistakes and likely some that may never be
able to be solved. The CQP review using that little extra "human" effort is
and should be applied to all contests. Computers are just fixed in on what
you tell it to look for.
In the ZL1ANJ case why couldn't time/exchange be checked for a matching log
submission. In that case K1TTT would have at least appeared on the exchange.
Even a 2-3 minute period could be inserted for poor computer timing.
Callsings and mults correct are not the only variables to check.
As someone said earlier (W6XR/2 ?), there is very little likelyhood that
there will come a fully functional log checking system that can review errors
to a satisfactory level. Just now in the first ARRL 10M application several
points have been shown and I'm sure mo follow.
To me this is much too much and applied before ample chance to work out bugs
in the process. Logs from last year should have been reviewed, then ask
entrants to review / contest the results. Fix problems, then a test run for
this past contest before applying it.
DXCC people know well that everyone is considered a CHEAT until proven
innocent by complete documentation to the DXCC Desk. I guess now the same is
being applied to contest logs.
73, Bob, W2CE
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|