There it is, another example of my favorite quote;
"You just cain't fix stupid"
Dan/W4NTI
----- Original Message -----
From: <thompson@mindspring.com>
To: "secc" <secc@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: [SECC] Comments requested.
> I agree that uniques are part of normal contesting. The average uniques
in
> the CQ 160 is less than 1% for scores over 500 QSOs.
> Then along comes a LZ9 and a UQ2 with hundreds of uniques that even closer
> stations did not work. RA3AUU thinks this could be rag chewers not even
in
> the contest. I was able to attract many stations not in the contest in
my
> ARRL SS efforts. In those days uniques was not even in the contesters
> vocab. I suspect that just like today some who got on to work one station
> made several more contacts. The list of possible uniques from high
scorers
> usually all show up in several logs.....thus the rate of uniques on 160 is
> very low.
>
> The probem log checkers run into is our software can ferret out uniques
but
> proving these contacts to be bad is hard. If a station has 500+ (out of
> 1100 Q's) uniques and they are all in one or two countries...what is the
log
> checker to think? Thus Don set the 7% rule as a generous test (rather
than
> 5% as several suggested). I found one stateside station to have
probably
> listed out the call book to fill out his log. He trapped himself when he
> listed novices and techs (several confirmed by mail) that have no access
to
> 160.
>
> 73 Dave K4JRB
>
>
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/seccfaq.html
> Submissions: secc@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
> Search: http://www.contesting.com
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/seccfaq.html
Submissions: secc@contesting.com
Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com
|