Shameless plug department - N1MM Logger supports some 30 QSO parties, including
Pennsylvania. In this case, as in most others, there are limitations - for
example, the claimed score it generates is double the actual for CW contacts,
thanks to that pesky 1.5 point rule - tough to handle in a program that
otherwise uses integer math. The mixture of ARRL (US) sections, Canadian
provinces (13 of them) and PA Counties as mults is unique and not well handled
this year, as is the issue of excluding US pacific possessions from counting as
DX (because they are PAC section). The ingenuity of QSO party sponsors is a
However, if, as Steve suggests, QSO Party sponsors would converge on Cabrillo
as the reporting medium, a lot of these problems would be transferred from the
shoulders of the user and logging software writer, and could be handled at the
sponsor's end, since Cabrillo doesn't attempt to indicate mults, special
stations, etc. MM's Cabrillo for the PA QSO party should be all the sponsors
need, but of course we can't tell them to accept it.
73, Pete N4ZR
At 11:36 PM 10/13/2006, Steve wrote:
>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
>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, etc.
>Seems like this would be a good way to get more logs submitted.
>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
CQ-Contest mailing list