Its about time for the PA QP to wake up and join the rest of the world with
use of cabrillo or something that doesn't require the individual contestor
to jump thru hoops to submit a log. I worked it in about 1999 and they
only would accept paper logs and that was the end for me. NO I didn't
send a log.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 3:36 AM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] [Fwd: Re: 2006 Pa QSO Party Plans]
> Hi Mike,
> It seems that requiring a summary sheet for state QSO parties is pretty
> common. And I can understand the reasoning behind it from your
> perspective as a contest official.
> The summary sheet is probably acceptable to the dedicated, enthusiastic
> contester, a relatively small segment of the contesting population.
> But as for me . . . I plan to participate in the PaQSO Party for the fun
> of operating and the challenge of working all of the counties. If my
> logging software can generate a report that I can email to you, I'll
> usually do that. I'm probably not going to fill out and mail a summary
> sheet. I think that's too much to expect of the casual or moderately
> interested contester.
> I believe the bigger contests can accept Cabrillo-formatted logs and
> derive all of the data they need for administration of the contest.
> With that in mind, I wonder if someone or a group could develop similar
> software for state QSO parties and make it available as freeware?
> Perhaps develop a core software that could be configured by the contest
> administrator to deal with the variations in exchanges, categories,
> minimum off times, county line contacts, number and name of counties,
> Seems like this would be a good way to get more logs submitted.
> Steve K8JQ
> Michael Coslo wrote:
>> On Oct 13, 2006, at 1:31 PM, CW Sanders wrote:
>>> And although PaQP now accepts entries by email they require that a
>>> summary sheet be sent by regular mail regardless of how you submit
>>> logs! What's up with that? Failure to do so will result in entry being
>>> classified a check log.
>> Here is the reason:
>> 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.
>> When the preliminaries are late, the section awards and other awards
>> are held up. The plaques can't be ordered. There is a ripple effect
>> the whole way along the post contest process.
>> I had a choice of DQing that huge amount of logs, or reverse
>> checking them to make a summary and trying to straighten things up
>> for the next year.
>> When trying to figure out just why that happened, I think perhaps
>> that emailing a log is almost too easy, and maybe some people just
>> didn't give as much thought to the process as they might have otherwise.
>> At any rate, we are trying to get a handle on the process. I want
>> things to happen on time, not 2 months late.
>> - 73 de Mike KB3EIA -
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.2/472 - Release Date: 10/11/2006
CQ-Contest mailing list