[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] 2006 Pa QSO Party Plans

To: CQ-Contest Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 2006 Pa QSO Party Plans
From: Mike Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:01:11 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
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*  
>>behind schedule.
>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

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