Hmmm... I wouldn't be too quick to include TRLog with the other two
logging programs. I have only operated multi-2 once and single op the rest
of the time with TRLog but my UBN reports have NEVER shown a busted serial
number by + or - 1 from the other station.
At any rate, if your station is spewing out erroneous serial numbers
someone should be penalized; perhaps the software author? :-)
John, W4AU
At 06:16 PM 11/13/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>I'm going to have to disagree with Mark here. Both CT and NA are
>notorious for sending the wrong QSO number by 1. TRLog probably
>shares this characteristic. This is especially true in multi-operator
>situations such as my operation at N6VR in last week's SS CW. But
>even when operating as a single operator there are numerous scenarios
>where CT and NA will send the wrong QSO number. Automatically
>penalizing either the receiving station or the transmitting station
>for this would contribute nothing that advances the purposes that log
>checking was intended for... It might, perhaps, automatically penalize
>operators that use computers for logging or automatically penalize
>multioperator stations. I really don't believe this would contribute
>to the contesting art.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mark Beckwith" <mark@concertart.com>
>To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:00 AM
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SS CW thoughts
>
>
> > Sorry I'm a few days late on this one.
> >
> > K2SX wrote:
> >
> > >I think the checking computer is totally right
> > >to allow a QSO number plus or minus one without penality.
> >
> > I don't agree, especially since many actual copying mistakes have
>this exact
> > symptom. I think this should be a wake-up to the transmitting
>station to
> > pay attention to what his computer is saying about him.
> >
> > There is at least one program out there which is smart enough to
>compensate
> > for most situations where some other programs could send the
>unintended
> > number. It is user-configurable to send the number of the last QSO
>under
> > these circumstances. It works good, but the bottom line is listen
>to your
> > own code, and don't cause someone else to get dinged becuase of your
>own
> > errors.
> >
> > I don't like loosening up the accuracy requirements just to
>compensate for
> > lazy operating.
> >
> > Or did I miss something and it has always been this way?
> >
> > Mark, N5OT
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|