Let me preface this with the statement that I do not wish to discredit
any of the learned operators that have offerred positions on the ongoing
discussions of log entries. It would appear to me; however, that some
contest puritans out there still have their heads in the sand. The
discussions about log submission times, recordings and massaging logs has
been around the horn a number of times. There is really nothing new in
these arguments. The silent masses are not exactly sitting on the edges of
their chairs waiting for new rules to emerge. If new rules do emerge, I
would venture to guess that there would be a significant drop in submitted
logs. I would also opine that it would affect contest participation,
particularly with respect to multi-op participation.
I don't really dissagree with most of the basic assertions about
post-contest manipulation of logs, but I do have a problem with some of the
strict interpretations of these issues. As an example, the statements that
say that "the contest is over when the contest is over" , "what you logged
is what you logged" etc are, to me, ludicrous overstatements of reality.
For me to return to my computer log and correct obvious typos, remove
obvious bad entries and to address issues logged in the notes file are
perfectly legitimate. I have justified this to my self, and if others have
a problem with it, then it's their problem not mine.
There are so many reasons to NOT envoke a short return time for log
entries that they need not even be stated. The most important is that it
would, in my opinion, be the final stroke in eliminating that event as one
that is popular and actively supported. The volume of submitted scores
would drop dramatically and soon the participation would also wane.
In earlier days of contesting paper logs were the norm and post contest
log work was also the norm. The level of post-contest attention was driven
by a number of factors. The larger the log, the more complex the exchange,
the more complex the check sheet, the relative condition of the pencils and
the neatness of the entries were all factors that drove the amount of time
required to submit a contest log. I can remember the late night hours that
my wife and I spent at the kitchen table pouring over the logs and check
sheets, removing dupes and making entries legible for moderately sized
multi-multi contest entries. The sponsors required that the logs be as
accurate as possible; they still do.
What the word "accurate" means is subject to interpretation, and I am
sure that this is at the heart of most of these discussions. I believe the
sponsors recognize this and aim to ensure that submitted logs are in the
proper format for processing and are a fair representation of the
participants activity. The decision tree that I follow recognizes that 1;
My entriy is not on the top of the heap, 2; My multi-op entry is an
amalgamation of operators of various contesting skills, 3; Scores of other
entrants will be affected by the action that I take with regard to my log,
4; Entries in my raw log are a product of an honest attempt to accurately
log was heard, and 5; Typing skills and familiarity with the specific
logging program vary dramatically from operator to operator.
This treatise could go on for a long time, so let me conclude with three
examples of post-contest editing that I might perform. The first would be
for an entry DLOAA which I would change to DL0AA. In the case of an entry
RW6BBDL4CD, I would edit this to DL4CD. Many other editing situations
require subjective analysis, and generally result from the operator allowing
the software to make entries that differ from what the operator copied. One
specific example of this would be; operator (A) on 160m logs DL7AA in Zone
15. Operator (B) subsequently has a 15 meter run and the s/w enters zone 15
for DL7AA. The operator would not expect this anomaly and ASSUME that the
entry would have been zone 14. I would edit the 15 meter and subsequent
entries to reflect that DL7AA is in zone 14. My M/M logs are typically 4 to
6000 Qs and it takes a bit of time to merge the six band logs, address the
notes and then tab through each entry and try to pick up on typos and the
more subtle inter-operator errors such as described above. I am certain
that M/M logs from stations higher up on the food chain take even longer to
prepare. Folks that don't have a dog in this fight will not speak up.
Nothing really new in that. Many of those that share my opinion will
respond privately but not wish to draw public attention to their position in
fear of some sort of social retribution. It is interesting to me to note
that the top contenders, other than those involved in the log checking
process, have opted not to comment in these discussions.
It's another issue, but the 3:1 penalty imposed for errors, in some
contests, is one that I feel encourages post-contest massaging. Take the
case where a station feels that he "may" have busted part of the exchange
and removes the Q from his log. He has done so to avoid a 3Q penalty but at
the expense of the other station, who also incurs a 3Q penalty. Reducing
the penalty to merely loosing the Q, encourages the station to leave the
potentially busted exchange in the log, thus not penalizing the other
station. This would seem a more equitable way to adjudicate errors.
Remember that more rules do not necessarily remove abiguity, prevent
cheating, or improve contesting. This is a hobby and the cash flow is
outward not inward. The great majority of entrants only have a goal of
improving their own stations capabilities, their own skills, or just having
fun. If the goals were to win (as I have seen stated on numerous
occassions) there would only be a handfull of entrants in each category.
Changing and adding rules does not prevent cheating, it merely sets a
standard against which entries can be judged. The fewer and more susinct
the rules, the more effective they are. Wanna hear my position on packet?
I thought not!
73 and enjoy the summer
Dallas W3PP
|