K5GA@aol.com wrote:
> I just got the answers back from Tree for my SS CW operation at WX0B.
>
> It was quite interesting, but I have some personal observations that I want to
> share with the masses. However, before doing so, everyone please understand
> that I appreciate the log checking being done, but also understand I see some
> harm in it as well.
>
> #1..........SS is not Sprint. I don't feel SS should be checked as hard as
> Sprint because of the tremendous amount of unique information that is
> exchanged in SS. Too many variables with QRM and fading that allows one dit to
> be lost which causes TWO QSOs lost. The penalty thing is ridiculous.
I'd like to address this from the prespective of one of those
"casual" contesters - the op who wants to add to his collection
of SS pins, not "clean sweeps" or what not.
I belive that SS should be checked hard - that's kind of why
SS exists in the first place - roots in traffic handling and all
that - accuracy is paramount.
I'll address the penalty issue later.
> #2..........- snip - Why should a station who is trying for a pin
> etc. waste his time knowing that some professional log checker is going to
> nick-pick his log to death to the point of possibly losing the pin?
I go into SS knowing that the exchange is long, complex and that
accuracy is important. As I'm looking for a pin, if I have a question
about the exchange sent to me, I usually hang around for a
for a couple of exchanges with other ops to make sure that I have
the exchange right. So I'm not terribly concerned about loosing
that many Q's.
> I know some of you will think logging accuracy is part of the
> improvement process. Well, it is, but don't slap these people too hard over
> this 100% accuracy thing.
Ok, penalty time. Personally, for the small casual op this
should not be an issue - if the op takes his/her time, listens if
he/she thinks the exchange is screwed up, etc. Your only
looking a certain number of Q's (not the max for a win) so time
isn't that much of an issue.
Where I do have a problem with Super Check is accuracy from
the sending end, but that's for another thread.
> #3..........to the point of having to edit my log because all the other
> stations
> of which
> I am competing against is editing. Sorry, but give me a big BREAK. Enough.
Hmmmm - it has been my experience that most logs are
"edited", "massaged", whatever anyway so why would this
make a difference?
I agree that if you want to be a Top Ten, then by all means,
insert a rule that logs must be submitted within two hours
of the end of the contest or similar.
Having said that, however, I'd be willing to bet that some
of the more computer literate contesters amounst us
will check their logs against data bases, etc and that this
will become an issue, hi....
I see this "super check" as a good thing, even for the small
time op like myself. The whole contest is aimed at a long
exchange, lots of information and accuracy - checking
should be part of the post-contest process.
Where I have a problem with super-check is the "tinker"
op - the guy who loads up his/her rain gutters and hands
out ten or so exchanges just for yuks. Those are the
Q's that are going to get lost in the shuffle and that's not
good - that where the "bug" get's caught - did for me.
So, that's my take - hope it makes sense.
73 ya'll.........
Tom (mailto:tomf@neca.com)
S. Woodstock, CT
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|