Bob et al,
I'm one of team behind CQMM DX Contest robot. This year we got 777
logs received, but would be much less If I didn't come after bounced
logs. I need to daily monitor logs bounced and take actions like write
to sender and try help out get a correct logs. If they does't know or
want to correct his log, I typed his log and submitted again.
We just cannot run log check software before all logs on right format.
Been on other side of submitting process, I know why results are not
released in shorter time as we wish. I just can imagine how many hours
It took to get hundreds logs corrected.
Thanks for your time helping contest better for us.
73, Luc
__
PW7T Team member
WRTC.2006 Brazilian Referee
WRTC.2010 Brazilian Team Leader
PY8AZT (also PT7AG, R37U, ZY7C, PX8C, ZZ8Z)
LABRE, ARRL, CWJF & Fortaleza DX Group Member
2012/7/23 Bob Naumann <W5OV@w5ov.com>:
>
> Simply: It's not a "reward".
>
> It's a matter of the contest sponsor taking the least painful route to get
> as many properly formatted logs as possible into the system in order to do
> as comprehensive and as accurate a log checking process as possible.
>
> Most of the poorly formatted logs are not the winners. It's the hundreds of
> small logs that are easier to manually analyze and just fix rather than
> trying to get the entrant to fix them.
>
> While we could just discard all the improperly formatted logs, that would
> result in a less accurate and less complete log checking process. Making the
> log checking process more accurate is the objective - it is not to reward
> the entrants who cannot manage to submit their log file properly. Most of
> those who submitted a poorly formatted log don't even know they've done so
> and they don't know that we've done the work to fix them. The other entrants
> benefit by having their logs checked more accurately - not those who
> submitted a poorly formatted log.
>
> Yes, some logs are so badly constructed or lacking of complete information,
> that we are forced to flag them as not usable and this is not what we want.
> Usually, in these cases, we try to get the entrant to resubmit a complete
> and proper log but many times they don't respond to requests or they report
> that the computer has failed that the log was on etc.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
> CQWW Committee Log File Fixer
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rudy Bakalov
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 3:28 PM
> To: Don Field; CQ-Contest MailList
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ Update
>
> There is nothing strange about my point- entrants, not the organizers, are
> responsible for ensuring that the log is good. Anything else is applying a
> double standard to the contest rules. What is the argument for rewarding
> participants who didn't even bother sending a clean log?
>
> Rudy N2WQ
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Don Field <don.field@gmail.com>
> To: CQ-Contest MailList <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ Update
>
> Rudy
>
> Very strange post.
>
> "Illegal" - that's a strong term and quite incorrect. Who's law are we
> invoking here? Personally, I wish more entrants would do a sanity check
> before sending their log.
>
> And many casual contesters still don't get their formatting, etc. right. Do
> we penalise them and discourage them from ever entering again? I still get
> jpegs, Word docs, all sorts. Even top contesters do silly things like
> uploading the wrong log - different contest completely. You write as
> someone who isn't on the receiving end and has no idea what happens!
>
> Anyway, a timely reminder to all that the IOTA contest is this coming
> weekend - I look forward to a record number of entries!
>
> Don G3XTT
> IOTA Contest Manager
>
> On 22 July 2012 15:23, Rudy Bakalov <r_bakalov@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I really don't believe I am reading this in a public forum- it is illegal
>> for participants to massage their logs after the contest, but it is OK,
> and
>> in fact it is a common practice, for the contest organizers to tweak the
>> logs? Why? I see a double standard here. I am sorry, but a failure to
>> produce a proper log should not be treated any differently than a failure
>> to play by all other rules, copy whatever exchange is being sent, know
> your
>> own call sign and send it in a legible way, etc. It is precisely because
> of
>> technology, where everybody is using a logger, that there should be no
>> excuses for producing a proper log.
>>
>>
>> Rudy N2WQ
>>
>> P.S. Log analysis for behavior indicative of cheating does make sense.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ed Muns <w0yk@msn.com>
>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 10:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ Update
>>
>> The scoring technology is excellent. 3500 CQ WPX RTTY logs were
> completely
>> checked in about 15 minutes on an garden-variety PC. 85% of all QSOs
>> cross-checked, calls busted that are off by two characters, all the scores
>> listings and tables for the magazine article properly formatted, etc.
>> However, hundreds of volunteer hours are put into manually correcting logs
>> for Cabrillo errors, wrong band, wrong date/time, wrong sent callsign,
> etc.
>> Running further tests and analysis to detect and validate cheating takes
>> many more volunteer hours. Its this manual labor that takes a couple
>> months
>> of calendar time by unpaid volunteers to get the logs straightened out so
>> the log check software can run with credible results.
>>
>> There's not much manual labor in submitting a contest log to the robot
>> after
>> the contest. Five days is more than enough time. Moreover, if
> individuals
>> would look over their log during those five days and correct the
> formatting
>> errors, the subsequent log checking time could decrease with less time
>> spent
>> by others cleaning up the logs.
>>
>> Ed W0YK
>>
>>
>> Rudy, N2WQ, wrote:
>> > Does this also mean that the results will be available and
>> > published much quicker? Not much use of technology if it's
>> > not applied to scoring as well.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|