jukka.klemola@nokia.com wrote:
> Yes, the logging mis-accuracy should be changed in value.
> I would like to increase the penalty instead of removing it.
> 5 QSO penalty would be better for a BAD QSO and 6 QSO penalty for
> not-in-log as the logging accuracy is a major item to measure.
......... snip
> 73,
> Jukka OH6LI/OH0V/OH4A
>
I agree: I've seen a lot of operators (me too!) hardly upgrading their
operating skill after seen the negative "weight" of their logged bad Qs.
Too many people, mostly new contesters, still consider the mis-accuracy
"Formula 1" style more important than a little bit slower but cleaner way to
run piles. Just give a look to some declared 3830's scores and than to the
final numbers .... someone looses a lot of places just for mis-accuracy:
it's extemely right to me.
Just my personal opinion,
Joe, IT9BLB/KF6FBC/9H3DC/IU9S/IH9P
http://www.ih9p.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|