The CQWWDX is definitely my favourite contest also because of the great job
that's behind, the accurate log checking and the respect I've for the huge
effort of the committee.
The weak point in the system is not the log checking procedure, the best
possible, but the fact that known that logs will be analyzed, a number of
logs are actually "revised" (i.e. QSO removed to fit with some rule) and
"corrected" (officially against so called typos, hi) before submission.
I've been told of logs fully rewised with tape recordings, but also
statistically, against databases of previous contests or cross checked with
several logs of the contest in object.
Stated that either behaviours aren't in the rules but exist, it probably
happens that many unique calls (I mean self found uniques) are statistically
corrected into a "most probable call" by many, choosing to correct the
"typo" into a call with higher recurrence in previous contests. Like this,
the same procedure used by many with similar databases, a fake but valid qso
will be created if that station didn't enter the contest at all, or the
"ex-unique" didn't send his log.
In the same way, stated that a removed qso isn't in the log, it's hard to
verify (or prove) that originally it was.
73,
Mauri I4JMY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] A lot of strange BADs in UBN - actually not!
> Today I got an impressive letter from Dick Norton, N6AA, member of CQWW
> Contest Committee. He clearly showed me that I was was wrong in my
> assumptions about mistakes in log checking and all the decisions of the
> Committee were VERY CLEARLY reasoned and VERY WELL analyzed.
>
> I want to apologize for any possible indirect accusations I made and for
any
> doubts I had in the accuracy of the log checking procedure. Iam more than
> convinced now that this is an enormous job those guys are doing and I am
> very impressed by the standards they have set and by the methods they use.
> It goes far beyond what we see in UBN and NIL reports!
>
> Dick clearly explained me that I was the only station working LY3BH
actually
> as the others were clear -Bs and it was quite certain that LY3BH was not
in
> the air. I confirmed it also having exchanged some emails with LY
stations.
>
> EA8ZC was actually us duping EA8ZS (the duplicate contact was in EA8ZS
log!)
>
> He proved me that several other -Bs that were worked by many stations
> besides us were really with no doubt -Bs!
>
> He admitted that F8BTQ was probably correct QSO and credit for it will be
> restored in the
> final run that will determine the score listed in the magazine. That was
> probably one of the only errors in the log checking.
>
> He also pointed my attention to the several U calls that should actually
> have been marked -B!
> There were some 20 of them! I guess you all have been thinking while
looking
> at the U calls in the UBN report that "Was I really the only one to work
> this station or did I mess up the call but was just lucky to hit an
existing
> one???!!!" Well I have thought so and it felt like a gift of some kind
> always!
>
> So the actual subject of my intial posting should have been: "We submitted
> the ES9C log with almost 10,000 QSOs, and it had one contact that appeared
> to be incorrectly marked -B. There were at least 20 claimed QSOs that
should
> have been marked -B, but were not"
>
> :)
>
> So no more whining about the UBNs, lets try to be more accurate ourselves
> and big thanks to those guys who have been striving to make our favourite
> contest what it is!
>
> 73
> Tonno
> ES5TV
|