If I am in a casual operating mode and a station calls me for a contest QSO
that requires a serial number, I make up a number other than "1" ( because
the station is expecting a higher number and therefore cuts down the number
of repeats)
If I work a few more, I will give out sequential numbers, if it is much
later and I have not logged the QSO's, I make up a new series of numbers.
I've followed this practice for years and no one has ever contacted me about
a "busted QSO"
Contest sponsors check to see if you copied the information correctly, not
whether the information was unique or sequential.
Jim
> > I take it the official answer is a "No comment"?
>
> Not quite. The answer is "we have been over this before". If
> you consider that the alternative "better work arounds"--which
> reportedly involve logging a different serial number than was
> sent over the air, then you are welcome to use those. However
> you might find that such alternatives actually cause log checkers
> to remove credit for QSOs in your log.
>
> I have yet to hear of even one QSO being discredited from even
> one log for having a gap or out-of-order serial numbers.
>
> There is a logical impossibility lurking behind these discussions
> that I believe many commenters are overlooking. If you look
> at the issue closely, you will find it impossible to do have ALL of these
> at once: (a) only consectutive serial numbers without gaps and
> (b) serial numbers in order, (c) no duplicate numbers
> (d) have more than one QSO in progress at a time (this applies to
> single op and multi-op) (d) don't log QSOs that fail to get QSLed
> (e) allow networked stations to continue seamlessly standalone when a
> station drops off the network
>
> Anyone whose definition of "correct" requires all the above
> is going to have to wait quite awhile before the software solution
> they are seeking shows up--and if you would like to engage
> in some discussions in formal logic you can prove that you will
> have to wait forever.
>
> All of this is NOT to say that WL's handling of serial numbers cannot
> be improved. I suspect it can. But countless postings of "I got a
> gap" or "I got a duplicate" are going to be ignored until someone gets
> a QSO disqualified for doing so.
>
> Wayne
|