CT-User
[Top] [All Lists]

[ct-user] RE: [CQ-Contest] Log checking Revisited

To: <ct-user@contesting.com>
Subject: [ct-user] RE: [CQ-Contest] Log checking Revisited
From: k8gt at flash.net (Gerry Treas K8GT)
Date: Wed Jul 16 08:25:58 2003
Aw c'mon, lighten up.  In the 13 or so years that I have been
more or less seriously contesting, this has NEVER been a problem,
either before or after Cabrillo.  First of all, even if the name
is the same due to space limitations, they are based on different
calls, countries, and in this case, continents.  And MRASZ was
always an entry problem with NA and I suppose others, but it
was never a problem in the checked logs, MRAS or MRAZ worked
as long as you were consistent in your log.

When the statement was made that log checkers have some latitude,
the statement was referring to their implementation of the software
and how the whole log checking process works for their particular
contests, not that they were capricious or whimsical.  All the
log checkers are top notch contesters of impeccable reputations,
and with more than a passing acquaintence with logging software.
 They aren't out to "get you".  Just trying to make all logs
match the contest sponsors criteria.  They certainly aren't a
bunch of lay people without any familiarity with contesting,
just waiting for a "GOTCHA!".

Most all of the mysteries of log checking have been covered in
several of the magazines, NCJ, CQ, and QST in the last 4 or 5
years and were well explained.  It would behoove all that are
unfamiliar with log checking to read these articles rather than
"hand wringing" on the reflector.

I use NA logging software, mostly, and I know K8CC has expanded
this field from 4 to 6 characters, two or more years ago, which
made things a lot easier for entry, but didn't impact the log
checking, particularly. 

And now back to our regularly scheduled kvetching.

73, Gerry, K8GT 



>--- Original Message ---
>From: "N7MAL" <N7MAL@citlink.net>
>To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
To: <ct-user@contesting.com>
>Date: 7/13/03 5:19:31 PM
>
Regarding the recent thread where it appears log checkers have
some latitude
>in determining whether we copy an exchange correctly or incorrectly.
>Here is an excerpt from this weekend with PJ2HQ. CT did not
allow enough
>room to type the exchange and as a result I result I could be
penalized even
>though I copied the exchange correctly(VERONA).
>PJ2HQ         599 VERON (This from the Cabrillo file)
>
>I participate for fun but for some of the 'big-guns' one or
more points
>reduced because the logging software didn't leave room could
spell doom.
>
>MAL                N7MAL
>BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
>www.citlink.net/~suzyq/N7mal.htm
>www.geocities.com/n7mal
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>    The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
>THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS!
>       http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contes


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [ct-user] RE: [CQ-Contest] Log checking Revisited, Gerry Treas K8GT <=