> > So, one is an "armchair quarterback" based on whether they appear
> > in YOUR log since the inception of LotW? That ignores plenty
> > of activity going back 30 years - most of which is on paper logs
> > that I'm not about to transcribe to LotW. It also ignores two
> > other calls held in the interim and any RTTY activity.
> > That's just a little presumptuous ...
> Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention that I also checked K4IK and
> W8IK. More zeros. Any other calls I should check ? And, by
> the way, that goes back to 1991 - the earliest logs I have
> uploaded to LoTW.
Interesting since of the logs I have on-line I show QSOs with
N2IC in CQ160 1983, ARRL 10M 2005 and NAQP 2006. Since I
rarely spend any time in domestic contests, that's not a bad
number of "hits."
> So, by your own admission, most of your contesting was done
> in the days of paper logs. That clearly makes you an expert
> in assessing the current state of log checking, with statements
> like "There are plenty of tools if they get off their fat, lazy,
> old asses and make their own analysis of log submissions."
That I do not submit logs on a regular basis does not mean that
I do not follow the state of logging software closely (you know
better than that) or that I ignore the discussions of log checking
here, at Dayton and in other venues. Understanding the state of
log checking is not rocket science if one pays attention to the
information already in the public domain and understands even a
little bit about computer programming and database operations.
Tono showed rather clearly that the tools exist to detect packet
cheating. Any contest sponsor could have made use of them rather
than take the easy way out and simply make logs public so someone
else can do the job.
By the way, I have received a couple e-mails from CQWW Committee
members who took my comments as directed at them personally. The
comments are not directed at any individual. I respect the efforts
and contributions of anyone who assists in the many contests during
a year. The CQWW committee members have reason to take pride in their
individual contributions just as those who work behind the scenes to
assure the integrity of the DXCC program have reason to take pride
in their contributions. However, I still believe that that the
committee as a whole took the easy way out by making logs public
without (apparent) concern for the rules/integrity of the DXCC
program in which many of their entrants also participate.
Rather than run roughshod over the DXCC program, the CQWW committee
(and other concerned contest sponsors) should have been actively
engaged in a public discussion of "how to detect cheaters?" As
Tono showed here, there are analytical and statistical tools that
can easily detect abnormal behavior/results that would indicate
potential cheating. These tools do not require that logs be made
CQ-Contest mailing list