Several posts to the reflector have expressed a lack of understanding of
the reasons for the (former?) ARRL policy on publication of logs and
disallowance of DXCC credit for those stations who allow such
publication. It is my understanding that ARRL DXCC is concerned about
the publication of logs because that allows someone who is not in the
log and didn't make a contact to peruse the log and find a similar
callsign. Once he has complete QSO information for a similar callsign,
he might be able to persuade the ham or QSL mananger to respond to a QSL
and he might get a QSL for a contact made by someone else with a similar
callsign when he even wasn't on the air.
Does that mean that QSL managers, myself included, should insist that
the callsign be exactly correct in the log? Many may already insist on
that, but I think most of us have allowed for slight errors where it
seemed clear that the callsign was miscopied or there was a key entry
error on the callsign. A rule of thumb seems to have been "off by one
letter or number" and the wrong call not having been likely to have made
the contact.
I am posting this only to inform those who are confused by a reason for
the supposed ARRL rule because they don't remember or weren't on the
reflector at the time of the earllier discussions.
I think it will be a shame if ARRL refuses to recognize for DXCC
purposes contacts made by me and others from PJ4A, for example, because
another entity entirely (not the operators) published the complete log
of the contest.
73,
John, K4BAI.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|