CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CHECKLOGS -- another view CQWW-wise

To: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CHECKLOGS -- another view CQWW-wise
From: Hank Garretson <w6sx@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:34:30 -0800
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:37 AM, (K7ZO) Scott Tuthill <k7zo@cableone.net>wrote:

Every year when the UBN report comes out I look it over in detail and
> summarize its results and make recommendations to the NK7U team. Over the
> years our focus on accuracy has really helped our score.  In fact in 2010
> we
> jumped up one position in the standings because of our better logging
> accuracy and we had the lowest score reduction in the Top 5 US M/2.
>

Improving accuracy is good, but may not always be the end-all. We're
striving for maximum score. Sometimes concentrating too much on accuracy is
counterproductive. For instance, breaking the rhythm of a good run to get a
perfect run-of-the-mill two-pointer in CQWW may not worth it. Perfect
accuracy on a new mult you're not likely to get again is worth it.
Contesting is decisions and compromise.

A great, eye-opening NCCC Webinar by ND2T on accuracy and it's consequences
is here:

http://www.nccc.cc/misc/ErrorControl-ND2T.wmv


73,

Hank, W6SX

Mammoth Lakes, California

Elevation 8083 feet in John Muir's Range of Light
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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