Hi John
As a log-checker for SARTG I have been looking into this.
My opinion is:
Bad Calls: Should be ZERO, this is typing errors from you or
that you clicked on a distorted callsign. You should observe this
kind of faults during the QSO itself or when you check the log
afterwards for typing errors.
Bad exchange: Should be almost ZERO, also typing errors or
distorted messages, but can also be caused of a US/Canadian
station sending state/province not according to standard.
Bad Zone: Should be less than 1%. Most common problem here is American
stations that work from "wrong" district as the logging
software assumes that eg. W9s are in Zone 4. In some cases the
exceptions are known and noted in .CTY-files, but not all are.
You have to be careful with all not familiar calls.
In general the logging software will give you good suggestions
for all non-US stations if you are aware that VE2s can be on both
zone 2 and 5. Russian 9s can be in both zone 17 and 18, and
Russian 0s in both 18 and 19. Antarctican station you never where
they are. You may also have errors in your .CTY-file.
Flagged bad by logger checker: Should be Zero.
Unique Calls with no alternative: Should be ZERO if you are not
working from a rare location. The possibility that a station will
work you, and only you in the contest is very small. Your old
good friend may call in on you only or you may have a extremly
good signal on 80m giving somebody a new country ever on that
band, but otherwise; no. This part has been much discussed and it is
very interesting to examine for a log checker. Should these QSOs
been removed or not? Some top stations have Zero here and some
have many. In contests like SARTG where you also exchange serial
number it is even more interesting when unique calls show up
here with serial number of a few houndred and nobody else have
worked them??? 001s I can accept.
Unique callssigns with alternative: Should be less than 1%,
here you have the stations that do not send in log that you
failed to get the correct callsign of.
Unique callsigns, verified by cross checking: Should be less than
1%. Typing errors and distorted callsigns.
Not in log, verified by cross checking: Should be less than 1%.
We all do mistakes when bands are crowded. This is a matter
of making sure the station you work knows that he works you.
Putting both his and your callsign in the exchange is a way,
but it decreases your rate. Interesting here is that some
calls show up here more frequent than other. Is it because they
only send the call of the station they reply to once? Or? I don't
know but the effect is there.
Dupes: Should be less than 2%, depending on if you send a
work B4-message when a station calls again or if you just work
him again to avoid discussion and save time, one of you can have
made a mistake the first time. Dupes are OK as long as you
exlude them in your claimed score.
In general I would say you should expect to lose some points,
when you compare to your claimed score.
< 1% lost: Very good logging, not many stations but they exist.
1 - 5% lost: Good, many stations are here
5 - 10% lost : Acceptable but you can improve your contesting style.
10 - 20% lost: You should improve your contesting style
> 20% lost: You are doing something wrong.
I have asked for my UBN-files as soon as they started to be available,
and they have made me aware of my mistakes and improved my results.
How much did I loose in CQ-WW? 1.8% so I am happy.
73's de Jan/SM5FUG
> Hey, I just got my first UBN ever! Now I know why they generate such
> "interest"!
>
> With 1300 Q's in our M2 effort, would anyone hazard a guess at some of
the
> usual UBN parameters, e.g. % uniques, etc etc that most would find
> "acceptable"? The worst thing was about 45 "zone exceptions", including
> several for US stations, e.g. W4GKM, W9SE. It's very difficult to
believe
> that this many were incorrect, especially the US stations. I'm not
whining
> either.... I jsut want to learn what's going on!
>
> Anyone willing to educate me a little about these things? Thanks! 73 -
> John
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
|