On May 7, 2009, at 8:52 PM, K0HB wrote:
>
>>
>> What we have is a bit of disconnect between database management, and
>> the desire of a Ham to get a QSO accepted. If you get your QSO
>> acknowledged, you're happy. That database isn't though.
>>
>
> The database doesn't care. It's just an inanimate collection of
> organized electrostatic charges on some server/disk farm.
I have to chuckle. Of course the database doesn't "care". It's an
expression based on how well it's working. But there is a person
using it who does - or should. Databases are central and essential to
what we do as contesters. Actually, I would have expected more people
to be concerned, rather than just me.
> ARRL isn't in the business of database management, they're in the
> business of matching QSO's for credit. Whatever works for
> them........
But you see - it doesn't work. People have to contact them to ask "why
isn't my QSO counting?" They then tell the person to change the data.
That is not a working condition, it's a post contact change in the
log. It's almost the same data entered twice. Imagine if contest
sponsors wanted us to change the data in our logs because of something
similar. We'd call it massaging the logs, and go off on another round
of discussion about cheating.
I'm not privy to their system, but unless it isn't very robust, the
change should not be very big.
>
> I was in the tool department at Lowe's the other day, looking at
> drill bits. Had a 1/4" bit in my hand, inspecting it. Helpful
> employee asked "Do you want a quarter-inch drill bit?". Told him
> "No, I want a quarter-inch hole."
I'll have to remember that one, Hans. If he would have been quick on
his feet, he would have given you a drill guide "with all the extra
holes thrown in free!"
-73 de Mike N3LI -
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|