[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] [Fwd: Re: 2006 Pa QSO Party Plans]
From: Mike Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:15:08 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:

>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.
    I should clarify that the PAQSO wants cabrillo files also. I think 
that somewhere along the line, there was a popular misconception that we 
required log submission via pony express, and that they needed to be 
inscribed in cuneiform on clay tablets. ;^)

    But we don't get enough from the headers. And after learning a bit 
about Cabrillo, I find it limiting, and so many programs treat it 
differently. I get cabrillo files where the only information present is 
the Op's name, qth and class. I am not sure where the deficiency lies, 
and I don't want to become a software evaluator, save for my own use.

    - 73 de mike KB3EIA -


CQ-Contest mailing list

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