Just to be clear, the following are my own comments / opinion and although
truthful, my comments should not be construed as official commentary from
any contest committee I may be a member of.
For at least the CQWW, no calls are removed in the manner described here by
ON7SS.
If they are Unique (i.e.; that callsign only shows up in your log and no one
else's) they are flagged as Unique but they *ARE NOT* removed from your log.
The only time such a call is removed is if it can be *proven* that the call
is busted (meaning it's not Unique, but instead is incorrect) or if there is
information available that the claimed QSO did not take place with the
holder of the callsign or something like that.
Where is this idea coming from about removing Uniques from logs? (Again????)
Bob W5OV
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Emily Thiel
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 6:19 PM
To: cq-contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The importance of CHECKLOGS
Some DXpeditions must really feel this effect. I for one know that I do get
many casual DXers late on Sunday calling me as I am a new DXCC for them.
Some are not interested in the contest at times, and they just want to work
the DX. In the end, calls are removed from my log as well. Too some extent,
I feel that the rarer you prefix is, the more you feel the effect. We can't
win all battles :)
73,
Emily Thiel, P43E,
P.O.Box 614,
ARUBA.
p43e@hotmail.com
http://www.qsl.net/p43e
> From: kzerohb@gmail.com
> To: xdavid@cis-broadband.com; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:53:08 -0600
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The importance of CHECKLOGS
>
> Second the motion. I rarely send in a CQWW log (you don't wanna know, so
> don't ask), but I'd hate to think that people who worked me didn't get
> credit.
>
> 3333333,
>
> Hans, K0HB/4ID
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Gilbert
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 11:45 AM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The importance of CHECKLOGS
>
>
> I'm all for checklogs, but it seems to me that removing legitimate
> contacts simply because a casual participant didn't send in his log is a
> policy problem, not a procedural one. I for one would question whether
> that really represents an advancement in the state of log checking
> standards.
>
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> On 11/21/2011 9:15 AM, Marc - ON7SS - OO9O wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Every year again we have to remove QSO's from a contestlog because the
> > callsign is not traceable.
> >
> > We all know that some people mainly non-contesters just make a few
> > QSO's, or to work a new country, a new prefix or to give a friend a few
> > points.
> > What they don't realize, not being a contester, is that logchecking is
> > growing to such standards that QSO's like that face the possibility to
> > be removed from the log.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|