On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 09:12, Pete Smith wrote:
> 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 constant challenge!
>
> 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.
The TN QSO Party log deadline was last Thursday. We received:
Cabrillo:
N1MM Logger: 20 (including one log containing only one QSO)
WriteLog: 12
TRLog: 8
unknown: 5 (Cabrillo files with no CREATED-BY: field)
GenLog: 4
CU2JT Logger: 1
DXKeeper: 1
KI4EGT: 1
LOGic: 1 (the Cabrillo file had its own template embedded in a
series of CREATED-BY: tags)
NA: 1
N3FJP: 1
=================
Non-Cabrillo text formats:
6
Excel spreadsheets:
4 (though our rules say any *text* format is acceptable;
Excel is
NOT a "text" format in my book. But I can
read them, so if that's what you send that's what
we'll use...)
=================
Paper logs: 13
=================
Obviously the vast majority of entries were Cabrillo. It may be
interesting to note that three of the "Non-Cabrillo text formats" files
came from three of our four most active mobiles. (I think logging
software authors may need to pay some attention to better handling
mobile operations)
We prefer Cabrillo files. (and say so in our rules) Most of them
contain enough information in the headers to properly classify the log -
after all, wasn't the intent of the Cabrillo header to make a summary
sheet unnecessary? I would be VERY happy if we could reach a time when
*all* TNQP entries were Cabrillo, it'd sure make my life as a logchecker
easier. I really can't say I understand why any QSO Party would NOT
welcome Cabrillo files.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|