CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] A lot of strange BADs in UBN - actually not!

Subject: [CQ-Contest] A lot of strange BADs in UBN - actually not!
From: tonno.vahk@mail.ee (Tonno Vahk)
Date: Thu Apr 25 00:46:48 2002
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!

Dick clearly explained me that I was the only station working LY3BH actually
as the others were clear -Bs and it was quite certain that LY3BH was not in
the air. I confirmed it also having exchanged some emails with LY stations.

EA8ZC was actually us duping EA8ZS (the duplicate contact was in EA8ZS log!)

He proved me that several other -Bs that were worked by many stations
besides us were really with no doubt -Bs!

He admitted that F8BTQ was probably correct QSO and credit for it will be
restored in the
final run that will determine the score listed in the magazine. That was
probably one of the only errors in the log checking.

He also pointed my attention to the several U calls that should actually
have been marked -B!
There were some 20 of them! I guess you all have been thinking while looking
at the U calls in the UBN report that "Was I really the only one to work
this station or did I mess up the call but was just lucky to hit an existing
one???!!!" Well I have thought so and it felt like a gift of some kind
always!

So the actual subject of my intial posting should have been: "We submitted
the ES9C log with almost 10,000 QSOs, and it had one contact that appeared
to be incorrectly marked -B. There were at least 20 claimed QSOs that should
have been marked -B, but were not"

:)

So no more whining about the UBNs, lets try to be more accurate ourselves
and big thanks to those guys who have been striving to make our favourite
contest what it is!

73
Tonno
ES5TV




----- Original Message -----
From: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 12:39 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] A lot of strange BADs in UBN


> As far as UBNs were mentioned I might say that I noticed quite a few -B
> calls in our ES9C M/M UBN report that were actually absolutely fine and
> existing calls and had been worked by many stations - 30, 40, or even
more.
> There was seemingly no reason to determine them -B (no Wn or anything). I
> know for sure some of them were OK QSOs as I even remember them. Like my
> first QSO on 20m -
>
> 1 -B ly3bh(3)  ly3by(1224)ww ly3bx(850)n ly3be(644)ww ly3bg(108) w3bh(2)
>
> It's a well-known contester from LY and we even chatted a few words in the
> beginning of the contest. He has only made a few QSOs as I suspect he
worked
> in some M/S team maybe...
>
> Another example on 20m:
>
> 2183 -B f8btq(17)  f8bqq(552)h f8bdq(21) f8bvq(8) hb9btq(147) py7btq(6)
>
> and on 10m:
>
> 269 -B ea8zc(5)  ea8zs(4250)ww ea8zz(12) ea8jc(7)
>
> It is a bit irritating actually, don't know if anybody else has noticed
> it...
>
> 73
> Tonno
> ES5TV
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest


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