> Here's another example:
>
> I call CQ and get an answer. The caller sends his call wrong, and I call
> what he sent. If he doesn't correct it, who gets dinged? I think I do,
> even though I didn't make the mistake.
>
> That's one of the reasons I stopped reading UBN reports.
Well, sh** does happen. However, it tends to happen to everyone about
the same rate. Yes - any specific data point may be wrong, but the
trends aren't.
If you are seeing error rates in the CQ WW or SS that are under 1 or 2
percent, then you can feel comfortable about your accuracy. The best
operators routinely achieve those error rates - even with the occasional
situation where someone else makes the mistake.
However, if you see error rates in the 5 percent or larger category, you
probably could improve your score significantly by putting a bit more
emphasis on accuracy.
Since the UBNs are showing you how your final score is calculated, it
seems that it would be important to hear what they are trying to tell you.
I am all ears if anyone thinks there is a more fair way to deal with
situations where the sending station makes the mistake. The one concept
that is used in a few contests is to bust the QSO on both sides when an
error occurs - but I don't believe the majority of contesters are really
excited by that rule.
The goal of the UBNs and log checking in general is to make sure the
right person wins - not to compute the most possible accurate score.
Contesing would suffer greatly if sloppy operators were allowed to take
advantage of their errors by having more QSOs and more interesting
multipliers. When you bust callsigns, you are less likely to have dupes
and if you bust a prefix, you are more likely to invent new multipliers
that other stations can't work.
The occasional "blown whistle" is just the price we all have to pay for
this.
73 Tree N6TR
tree@kkn.net
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|