Doug, KR2Q wrote:
> I also fully support Ward's position: Send in the log now and "analyze" it
> later. Finding errors is the > role of the adjudicators, not the
> competitors
> (at least not until they've submitted their original log).
For the record, I agree with Doug and Ward regarding re-working your log
after the contest is over. With the exception of making notes on-the-fly and
applying these corrections later, I typically generate my Cabrillo file and
send it off to the contest sponsor without grooming my log.
But there is another scenario I would like to open up for discussion. And
that is about "reasonable expectations."
For instance, let's say you fly from New York to San Francisco on a regular
basis. You reasonably expect to arrive at your destination within the normal
timeframe based upon hundreds of previous trips. You wouldn't "reasonably
expect" to land in Orlando or crash somewhere in a wheat field in Kansas.
Now let's say you have been using a contest logging program for hundreds of
contests. You would reasonably expect it would log the information you typed
during the contest. You wouldn't "reasonably expect" it to change your
logged contest exchanges, especially without any indication or knowledge on
your part.
But let's say this DID happen. The program went renegade and decided to log
what it felt like, more or less at random. Let's further say this problem
did not
become apparent to hundreds of contesters until AFTER the contest was over.
They all "reasonably expected" their Cabrillo file would contain what they
typed.
The first question: Does the operator have the "right to know" this happened
to their log? Or should it be sent in first and reviewed later as suggested?
The second question: What is a prudent course of action if this scenario
happened to you?
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
----- Original Message -----
From: <kr2q@optimum.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:03 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Cheerleaders and the impact
> Being spotted (whether by many others or by a few or even one cheerleader)
> does indeed
> have a sizable impact on rate based on my many decades as a log checker in
> CQWW. It is
> totally obvious that the RATE goes up when a spot is made IF the rate is
> such that it can be
> increased.
>
> With the current WRTC situation, simply because the station receiving the
> lion's share of spots did not
> "win, place, or show" in no way proves that those additional spots were
> not a help. For all you
> know, this station may have come been destined to come in dead last, but
> instead placed
> wherever they did. Those with scores greater than the "spot-ee" do not
> care, but saying "no
> impact" is completely (a) a total guess and (b) probably NOT what those
> with a lesser score
> are thinking.
>
> If anyone else out there has compared the rates of hundreds of logs
> immediately before and
> then subsequent to a "spot" on Cluster (as I have) and can refute the last
> sentence in the first
> paragraph above, I'm all ears.
>
> I also fully support Ward's position: Send in the log now and "analyze" it
> later. Finding errors is the
> role of the adjudicators, not the competitors (at least not until they've
> submitted their original log).
>
> de Doug KR2Q
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|