On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 07:30 AM, "Mark Beckwith" <n5ot@n5ot.com> wrote:
>
Posting the preliminary scores is a service to our participants. They
>> see their entry, and they see we have some idea of what their score
>> might be.
>
>I think it's reasonable to say they also notice where they placed in respect
>to everyone else near them. I know I do. Call me competitive. It's also
>reasonable to wonder why the order changes between the preliminary and final
>listings. This conversation is all about that.
>
>
>
>
> > But there is a reason they are called preliminary. Scores get changed.
>> And anyone who relies on the preliminary score as what their final
>> score is might very well be disappointed.
>
>In the best case, the only reason to be disapppointed would be to be
>disappointed in oneself. The only reason your score should fall is that
>either your copying or your logging were sufficiently erroneous to cause
>your score to slip down past some other operators who copied/logged more
>accurately than you did.
>
>That's a perfect world.
>
>In the real world, it is possible to slip down through no fault of one's
>copying or logging accuracy, but the stated goal of the log checkers, who
>are the first to say the process is not perfect, is that the goal is to have
>a system sufficiently good enough so that this does not happen. I
>personally have yet to hear of a contender who has slipped a position
>between "claimed" and "final" that can be attributed to the
>removal of legitimate, accurately copied contacts which should not have been
removed.
>Some people complain about having good QSOs removed, but did it change the
>order of the box? I don't think it does.
>
>Therefore, it should be safe to assume the final standings should be pretty
>accurately reflected in the perliminary listings.
>
>It is not a safe assumption. More on that below.
>
> Therefore, it should be safe to assume the preliminary listings should be
>able to be counted on as a pretty good idea of how you're going to finish.
>If you move up in the standings, you get an extra pat on the back for being
>more accurate than the guy above you was, and the guy who slipped knows he
>has some work to do in the accuracy/logging department.
>
>
>Again, it is not a safe assumption. You have made three assumptions here,
>one of which isn't stated. That is the assumption that the logging software
>is always perfect. The truth of the matter is that there are some softwares
>that don't tote up the final score correctly. In addition, I notice that you
>assume that the score always goes down. It does not.
>
>But if you are taking preliminary scores as some sort of gospel,
>especially on a web page that isn't done by the contest sponsor,
>Your destined for disappointment.
>
> The introduction of a new call to the box in the finals is rightly highly
>suspicious and it's better for everyone when that does not happen.
>
>Only if you assume (there is that word again!) that someone is cheating.
>You are also pointing the finger of accusation at the sponsor.
>
>
>change categories? Did he massage his log? Did the sponsor accept his log
>after the deadline?
>
>I have had people who had a problem log send one in to me after the deadline
>when I've had problems with their first on-time submission. Just last year in
fact.
>The guy won his county. Is that cheating?
>
>
> That's not a witch hunt. That's due dilligence. It's also easily avoided
>which is good for everyone. Which is what this is about.
>
>Respectfully Mark, there is some sort of name for it. I allow a guy to fix his
log
>(it was sent in a wrong format). And you are on record right above
> as saying that is suspicious.
>Fact is, any of my peeps can call me on the phone, or send off an email if
they have a question. I'll
>explain the situation in a friendly manner. I might not be as gracious
>when they are "suspicious" of me.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|