N6TR asked:
>Well - which is more fair?
>
>1. A non-automated process applied unevenly to a few logs. (This is the
>old method of log checking before about 12 years ago).
>
>2. An automated process that is evenly applied to all logs without any
>special consideration given to any log.
>
>3. An automated process applied to all logs, and a few of them get special
>consideration where each possible questionable judgement is challenged
>without any possibility of an equal amount of attention given to possible
>errors that could result in the score being reduced?
If the log checking process declares calls as bad despite my receiving
requests for QSLs from those stations, or because VU3s do not exist, or
seemingly on a hunch (a VS6 portable DU _must_ be dodgy), I & perhaps
others are being docked for perfectly valid Qs.
On the first pass, all Us that were -Bs were identified as such. To go back
later & decide more Us were in fact -Bs is not only counterproductive (by
discouraging bringing anything up to begin with), but also begs the question
why they weren't called -Bs the first time around.
Dock me for my mistakes. But docking me for other stuff when there may not
be much room for improvement as I strive to work my way up the CQ WW
Honor Roll isn't on.
Looking forward to seeing if submitting entries with a dozen or two Qs at most
solves this - it should also do wonders about those pesky QSLs. ;^)
73, BW2/VR2BrettGraham
|