Since Mr. Zack has seen fit to impugn the ARRL 10M log checking process, I
feel compelled to respond.
In response to his, I forwarded him his LCR from the 2002 ARRL 10M
Contest. I also provided additional details to augment the information in
the report.
While I would like nothing better than to post the details of that e-mail
here on the reflector, I will respect Mr. Zack's privacy and refrain from
doing so. However, I will say that of the eleven QSOs which the DU1/K6ACZ
entry lost in logchecking, NOT ONE QSO WAS DUE TO THE PROBLEM HE ALLEGES
(DU/K6ACZ not being recognized as DU1/K6ACZ).
I'm trying to be civil so that the list moderator can pass this message in
good conscience. However, it really irritates me when people post messages
to the list containing accusations when they don't know what they're
talking about.
I don't think there is a log checking team out there that will claim their
process to be perfect. Perfection IS the goal - how close you can get is a
matter of judgement.
One more thing - those of you griping about log checking need to get a
grip. Make no mistake - getting the QSO right is the expectation in ANY
contest. The contesters who are respected (fill in the blank here) accept
this and use this as motivation try to do better.
K8CC
At 12:57 PM 7/3/03 -0700, Alan C. Zack wrote:
>Just for curiosity, I would like to have the reflectors opinion of
>just how strict computer log checking should be. In the ARRL 10 meter
>contest in December 2002 I operated from the Philippines. My
>temporary permit listed my call as DU1/K6ACZ so that is what I used
>during the contest. However, with my weak signal, many stations,
>including a lot of EU stations, had a hard time copying my call with
>its portable designation from my weak DXpedition station. Maybe they
>would get my call OK but not the portable DU1. So in many logs I was
>logged as K6ACZ/DU or /DU1 instead of the DU1/K6ACZ I submitted my log
>under. This may also be because of the personal preference of the
>person on the other end on how he wants to enter my call in his log or
>just the way he heard it. Regardless, if it wasn't logged as
>DU1/K6ACZ is was treated as a busted call (NIL) and removed from my
>log with penalties, resulting in a reduction of 4804 points. They
>only disallowed 11 QSO's from my entry so a reduction of 4804 points
>seems a little excessive. It computes to 437 points per lost QSO.
>That seems a little high. I am still waiting for the LCR for the 10
>meter contest to be published to answer my question as to how having
>11 QSO's counted as NIL cost me 4804 points. If they did not count
>the QSO for me then I suppose the guy on the other end also got a NIL
>for the contact and lost points too.
>In case you are wondering, I do operate and contest from DU every two
>years or so, and would love to have a DU call to use when I'm there.
>But to do so I must have a permanent residents card and pass their
>test. I don't qualify for a permanent residents card there, I travel
>as a tourist.
>Here is a snip of the reply I got from the ARRL Contest group when I
>presented the question:
>ARRL wrote: "The various log checkers handle the portable "/"
>designators different ways (as they each have developed their own
>processes). - the software didn't see the match as correct so the call
>got a NIL. With millions of contacts being processed, it simply isn't
>possible to hand check each and every contact."
|