Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
>On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 15:45, Michael Coslo wrote:
>> Last year, we only required in-state logs to submit hardcopy
>>summary, and the result was that almost 40 percent of our logs came
>>in without a summary at all. Since we generate the preliminary scores
>>from the summary sheet, that meant that those logs had to be checked
>>before the preliminary results were published, and put us *way*
>Do you find claimed scores to be reasonably accurate?
The typical mistakes we find are lack of the EPA/WPA mults. The
party uses sections instead of states. Another problem is that blasted
1.5 point CW QSO point value. Depending on where you round up, it can
make a difference in the score. Some forget to add the special event
station to their score, some get some sections wrong, and some are
busted callsigns - sometimes badly busted!
>I check the logs for the Tennessee QSO Party, and find that claimed
>scores are often wrong, often by large amounts.
These are approximate figures off the top of my head:
Probably 65 percent are spot-on.
Of the remaining 35 percent, 15 percent have errors that actually
increase their score - those are the happy Ops! Another 17 percent have
fairly severe errors that end up altering their score downward. The
remaining 3 percent have problems that prevent their being used at all.
Some have indecipherable QSO listings, some even have no ID or callsign
for the OP!!
- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -
CQ-Contest mailing list