Dink and all:
I recommend publishing QTH information where it affect awards. In other
words, if there is an award for high state or ARRL Section, the report
will be far less meaningful if the section or state is not included.
But, if the QTH information is not part of an awards program (such as
the Grid Square in the Stew Perry Challenge), you might consider not
listing it. I'd find it far more informative in the Stew Perry results
to give the State of the station submitting the score than the Grid
Square. Maybe it's just because I haven't been giving out grid squares
(haven't been working such contests and 6 meters) but for a few years.
In contests where the QTH information is almost always determined from
the call used, such as CQWW, I'd continue to list the QTH information
Michael Dinkelman wrote:
> Hello all
> One of the members of the list (who I'll
> not name unless he wants to come forward)
> made a perfectly valid point to me tonight.
> One I guess that hadn't occurred to my simplistic
> mind. In fact, I've delayed sending out tonight's
> summaries just because of his point.
> "....exchange info in the score rumors is a bad idea"
> In this case, the grid info is being published by
> those reporting their results in the Stew Perry
> contest. I can see where this would lead to
> easy cheating or "verification".
> In the past, other exchange info such as
> states and sections have been offered up. Before
> the 3830 Web page came up, it was normal for most
> people to just post their entire contest summary
> sheet (usually including a sample exchange). Master
> databases have made copying the exchange in most
> contests a matter of verification rather than copy
> Maybe this example is most glaring because the
> grid is the only info exchanged? Yet, anybody
> could go to QRZ.com or search CD-ROM (on
> packet or on their computer) and obtain grid info or
> most anything else for very little effort.
> These are your summaries. I'm just collecting the info
> and (trying to) present it an easily readable form.
> To me, I find grid squares even more interesting
> as a comparison point (being smaller) in comparing
> scores than a state or section. However, I
> certainly don't want to make cheating easier.
> I feel I can make a case for either side.....
> I would really like a consensus.
> Should ANY exchange info be shown in the summaries
> and if so, what is the limit?
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com