On 9 Nov 2002 at 10:09, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> Uniques are innocent until proven guilty. Read that again.
I read Tom's post before Tree's. Had I read Tree's first, I most
likely wouldn't have posted a reply. Read that again.
That being said, I have been burned in the past by the super-duper
log checking routines myself, so I'm fairly sensitive about the
potential of having QSOs removed when they are, in fact, valid.
Ever since these guys started talking about this super-duper log
checking and introduced terms such as "unique QSO", there has been
talk of someday removing uniques. It should never happen.
> Tree, who writes the software and performs the log checking, made it clear
> MANY times in his post that uniques are only tossed if they are proven to be
> busted. No offence intended to anybody, but do consider the source on these
> matters.
I do consider Tree to be a fine individual, that's not in question.
I do question the super-duper log checking process though.
Consider first, that this is a hobby - at least it is for me.
Consider that I, and 95% (guess) of the others involved would not
manufacture contacts for the sake of increasing their score.
Consider that everyone makes errors in copying from time to time, and
errors in sending also - even when using a computer for sending CW,
due to computer hiccups, RFI, whatever.
Consider that the process is rife for sabotage.
> But there needs to be proof to toss uniques, even in the above example.
How about this for a scenario...VE4XT works AA4GA, who makes 100 QSOs
and sends in a log. AA4GA's computer or VOX hiccuped and sent his
call as AA4GT. That happened when VE4XT logged him (as AA4GT).
After log checking, wouldn't the QSO be removed from VE4XT's log?
> Innocent until proven guilty. Clear?
Wasn't VE4XT just proven of being guilty in the previous example?
Was he guilty? Clearly.
How about this for a slightly off-topic, but related scenario...VE4XT
works AA4GA, who makes 100 QSOs and sends in a log. AA4GA remembers
back to the last contest when VE4XT "stole" his frequency and decides
to not log the QSO. After log checking, wouldn't the QSO be removed
from VE4XT's log? Isn't he being penalized for something he didn't
do?
So, you see, this whole log checking process, while possibly well-
intentioned, just doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling. I'm pretty
sure most of the folks involved in it will admit that it's not 100%
accurate, but that the error is acceptable. I don't agree, that's
all.
73 de Lee
--
Lee Hiers, AA4GA
Cornelia, Georgia
|