Hi Chris,
I was talking about IARU HF where "one QSO" and "no log" stations are many due
to the nationals working there HQ station.
Yes log padding in CQ WW in WPX is risky, but UT5UGR showed us that you can do
it for several years without being caught.
Adding 50 QSOs to a 2000 Qs log can go unnoticed, but if they are on 160m they
count for 50 new multipliers!
73,
Yan.
---
Yannick DEVOS - XV4Y
http://www.qscope.org/
http://xv4y.radioclub.asia/
Le 22 mai 2015 à 12:04, Christian Schneider <prickler.schneider@t-online.de> a
écrit :
> Hi Jan,
> that
>
> run it into your log as you can go away with it without cross-checking
> possibility.
>
> will not work reliably to the satisifaction for an offender. Logchecking also
> extends to logs of stations not submitting a log. Rather easy in a contest
> with serials like WPX. The offender then needs to guess a serial for "his"
> time he wants to insert the QSO. It will be seen from the tracelogs of this
> station if the number fits - very risky. Also Uniques are a case for checking
> as a known source of potential mischief. There are also a lot of ways to
> check. But of course: It is a matter of work and time invested, but log
> padding is not without serious risk (admittedly a bit less in contests with
> fixed exchanges).
> 73 Chris DL8MBS
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|