Interesting thread on CHECKLOGS -- here is another view at least relative to
CQWW.
Every year when the UBN report comes out I look it over in detail and
summarize its results and make recommendations to the NK7U team. Over the
years our focus on accuracy has really helped our score. In fact in 2010 we
jumped up one position in the standings because of our better logging
accuracy and we had the lowest score reduction in the Top 5 US M/2.
Anyway, this year we had a NIL deduction from a CHECKLOG -- or at least I
assumed it was a CHECKLOG because their full log was not posted and CQWW
does not post the logs of CHECKLOG stations. So, this leads to following
thoughts:
* Since a CHECKLOG station is not submitting a log for a score what
motivation do they have for keeping an accurate log and in this case even
logging all their QSO's?
* Since the CHECKLOG is not posted I can't see what might have been going
on. For instance our NIL occurred near the start of the contest when we were
running. And having a NIL when you are running should be much more rare than
when S&Ping -- assuming the other station is logging accurately. Were there
other QSO's in the checklog from that same period? Maybe the station only
started logging later in the contest when they thought "Hey maybe we should
create a log and send it in".
So the points are:
* Giving a CHECKLOG the same level of authority with respect to its impact
in the UBN process does not seem correct from a logic standpoint. CHECKLOG's
motivation for high logging accuracy is naturally lower since they know
their score will not count.
* I would recommend that the CQWW team post CHECKLOGS -- I am not sure of
their rationale for not posting them.
Scott/K7ZO
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|