Just got the following from Scott and thought I would pass it on.
"Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your e-mail. If / when I do the rewrite to .NET, I plan to
add the option to log dupes in my software.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
73, Scott
N3FJP
http://www.n3fjp.com/";
--
Jeff Embry, K3OQ
FM19je
ARCI #11643
FPQRP #-696
NAQCC #25
AMSAT LM-2263
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
On 7/3/06, John (JK) Kalenowsky, K9JK <k9jk73@msn.com> wrote:
> Since "electronically" submitted logs (Cabrillo format) are NOT penalized
> for dupes, might it just be easier to just log the "dupe," rather than try
> to figure out what the dupe was.
>
> After all, it *might* have a mis-copy/mis-entry of the initial QSO by one of
> the stations, so, when the station that entered the initial QSO correctly
> reports it IS a dupe...but, the station that mis-copied/mis-entered thinks
> it is not...why not just LOG it instead of arguing about it?
>
> The station that initially mis-copied or mis-entered should get a penalty
> but I would hope that the station that copied correctly would NOT be
> penalized...can someone more familiar with what the robots/log-checking
> programs do comment on whether or not such logic is implemented?
>
> 73, JK
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|