Mike,
I think this recent thread is doing a great deal to clear up many
misconceptions about the log checking process and the UBN reports.
It seems the three main points that are misunderstood are that:
1) B means 'BAD QSO" and not necessarily a "bad" or non-existent callsign
2) Uniques DO NOT cost you points from your score.
3) If someone else logs your call incorrectly, they lose points - not you.
Regarding number 1, often a callsign is logged which is indeed a good
callsign - but it's marked B because that isn't who you worked!
73,
Bob N5NJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Gilmer - N2MG" <n2mg@contesting.com>
To: <tonno.vahk@mail.ee>
Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] A lot of strange BADs in UBN - actually not!
> Tonno,
>
> I, too, have had several correspondences with the CQWW
> committee and/or log checking folks. Each of the
> responses I received was courteous and enlightening.
>
> The more I learned (directly from them and not from
> speculation on the reflector), the more I realized
> these guys know what the hell they are doing. The
> techniques are logical and well constructed. And,
> might I add, apparently still very closely scrutinized
> by humans.
>
> It's only too bad that they haven't figured out a way
> to make a public document describing some of their
> techniques without giving away their, excuse the
> term, "secrets". They understandably want to avoid
> folks attempting to "wash" their logs based on the
> criteria.
>
> Mike N2MG
>
> On Wed, 24 April 2002, "Tonno Vahk" wrote
>
> >
> > Today I got an impressive letter from Dick Norton,
> N6AA, member of CQWW
> > Contest Committee. He clearly showed me that I was
> was wrong in my
> > assumptions about mistakes in log checking and all
> the decisions of the
> > Committee were VERY CLEARLY reasoned and VERY WELL
> analyzed.
> >
> > I want to apologize for any possible indirect
> accusations I made and for any
> > doubts I had in the accuracy of the log checking
> procedure. Iam more than
> > convinced now that this is an enormous job those guys
> are doing and I am
> > very impressed by the standards they have set and by
> the methods they use.
> > It goes far beyond what we see in UBN and NIL reports!
>
> ________________________________________________
> PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
> http://www.peoplepc.com
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>From Sylvan Katz <jskatz@sk.sympatico.ca> Thu Apr 25 17:10:49 2002
From: Sylvan Katz <jskatz@sk.sympatico.ca> (Sylvan Katz)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] eQSL.cc reverses policy
Message-ID: <017c01c1ec73$c413f140$6400a8c0@selfsimilar>
April 24, 2002 -- eQSL.cc has removed its double blind requirement on the
eQSL inbox because the ARRL says that it will not accept its eQSLs for DXCC
awards and a large majority of their users wants things put back they way
they were. Read the complete announcement at
http://www.eqsl.org/qslcard/DXCCInfo.cfm
.. sylvan
Ô¿Ô¬
----------------
Sylvan Katz, VE5ZX
Saskatoon, SK
"A Novel Perspective of Amateur Radio Contesting" at
http://www.dynamicforesight.com/~ve5zx
|