> Not a good idea. For example ...
> Most stations will log me as WD4AHZ ... some log me as WD4ASZ.
> WD4AHZ WAS in the contest ... WD4ASZ was not, but is a legitimate call.
> Using your method, WD4ASZ would be "good" ... even though it's an
> obvious "bust"? Is THIS how you want the logs scored?
> It's made even worse if I don't send in a log for cross-checking purposes.
> Ron
Not at all. The log checking program in its present form would find
the "bust" when compared against your log, and I commend you for
sending it in. Those who logged WD4ASZ would unfortunately get credit.
But, I think you have missed the point. The purpose I proposed will
not help in the above problem, but ( and I am assuming the following
calls are not issued ), if someone logged you WB4AHZ, and that call is
not issued, they get a bust without any doubt. And there are numerous
other combinations of your call which may or may not be issued.
My suggestion was to make it a 100% certainly that a call which is not
issued, for example my old call in 1955, K4DJC, will generate a
guaranteed bust.
Just for fun, I removed all but the calls from my 2002 SSCW log, and
the wrote a short program which compared my log against the actual
database. It found 2 calls which were not issued. I then checked them
against my Buckmaster CDROM, and on QRZ.com and all 3 confirmed that
no such call had been issued.
And yes, after a couple of friendly arguments with the robot, I had
submitted my log BEFORE i did this.
73
Ed
|