CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Sweepstakes -Automatic Fill - 93 or 67

To: "Stan Stockton" <stan@aqity.org>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Sweepstakes -Automatic Fill - 93 or 67
From: "Robert Chudek - K0RC" <k0rc@citlink.net>
Reply-to: Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc@citlink.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:02:41 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Stan,

I had the same experience in my UBN report. But in my case it was from my 
operation in Grand Forks, ND in 2007. That was the only time I have ever 
operated from that state. I got some ND? when I sent my MN section in 2008 
but some others apparently logged what the prefill had put into the section 
field.

The downside to this will be a possibility some stations will loose a sweep. 
ND is not that common and if they logged me as the only ND, well there goes 
their sweep out the window.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN (not ND)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stan Stockton" <stan@aqity.org>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 1:02 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Sweepstakes -Automatic Fill - 93 or 67


> Looking at the log checking reports, I was surprised at the number of
> stations who apparently fill in the exchange information from a previous
> year's database.
>
> My son used my call in 2007 and his check is 93.  In 2008 I operated
> with a check of 67.
>
> There were 22 instances in 2008 where received logs did not make a
> correction, had the check listed as 93, they lost the QSO and perhaps,
> for some, a mulitplier.  I would assume there were perhaps hundreds who
> made the correction from 93 to 67.
>
> There were other instances where it was somewhat close to 93 (not even
> close to 67) and the log checking report from the previous year shows
> the check was miscopied in 2007, and then the incorrect information was
> used for 2008 and the contact would have been lost even if Kevin had
> operated instead of me.
>
> There may be some advantage in using the fill but something that you
> would really need to watch in order for it to not hurt you more than it
> helps.  For those who choose to use it, it would be good to go to the
> log checking report and correct any errors in your log so it will be the
> best it can be for the next time.
>
> Stan, K5GO
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>