Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+RDXC\s+Log\s+Checking\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+RDXC\s+Log\s+Checking\s*$/: 17 ]

Total 17 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: "Robert L. Shohet" <kq2m@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:52:04 -0400; On aggregate, you are no more likely to lose points because of other ops' copying errors than your competition is likely to lose point because of those same ops' copying errors. Unless you are someho; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00144.html (8,319 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee>; Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:02:39 +0200; Hi Bob, I don't agree that ignoring weak stations and CQing instead is a fruitful strategy for an ordinary station in any contest. You have the luxury to do that from DX location with constant pileup; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00148.html (11,375 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd@charter.net>; Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:24:48 -0800; I hope my friend Tonno was just making a joke about logging rubbish in the WPX contest. It may have been that way in the past, but I can assure you the level of WPX log checking is quite high now. We; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00151.html (14,899 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>; Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:40:13 -0700; I have no doubt that the RDXC log checking policies might make you more aware of the need to be accurate, and might as a result change tactical choices one makes in the contest. And I don't know if i; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00155.html (12,254 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>; Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:53:39 -0700; I disagree. In the past, I have spent painfully long times completing weak, weak QSOs that afterward look like tactical mistakes because if I just called CQ, odds are that I could have made 2 or 3 QS; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00158.html (8,404 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee>; Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:47:11 +0200; Randy! I have to clarify. I absolutely appreciate the efforts of making WPX a better contest and I am not saying there is anything wrong with the log checking. I am saying that one can log as much ru; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00159.html (16,883 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd@charter.net>; Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:24:24 -0800; The WPX has a 2 QSO penalty for busted calls. Missed exchanges or other errors only lose the the one QSO. We can make the penalty more if that's what everyone wants. :) Randy, K5ZD __________________; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00161.html (19,407 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: "Felipe J Hernandez" <fhdez@islandnetjm.com>; Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:05:21 -0400; packet, check partial, SO2R, recording, post contest analisys, roofing filters, SDR's, etc, etc, etc That the only thing that may eventually require our intervention would be making sure that we can; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00164.html (17,967 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>; Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:51:53 -0500; "That the only thing that may eventually require our intervention would be making sure that we can log correctly and properly confirm a QSO in a real two way fashion." Not a bad idea. Create a contes; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00171.html (8,806 bytes)
10. [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: Henryk Zwolski <zwolski@bci.krakow.pl>; Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:11:06 +0100; Henryk Zwolski SP9JPA The HF QSO definition needs to be established for the purpose of claiming and adjudicating contest contacts. Contest QSO Definition A two-way amateur-radio contest contact has t; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00181.html (10,634 bytes)
11. [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:15:29 -0400; It seems to me that the real problem is that the RDXC is the only major contest that penalizes Station A if Station B miscopies his serial number. Because such errors aren't penalized in other contes; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00185.html (8,799 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:39:10 +0500; This is pretty interesting idea David. Yet more interesting would be to invent an exchange protocol that would allow contest adjudicators to determine who made an error during 2 way qso. Then the gu; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00195.html (9,556 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: Ed Steeble <esteeble@sc.rr.com>; Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:23:16 -0400; After reading all the back and forth comments generated by K5ZD about the RDXC log checking I think that we need a new contest which has a new exchange or a contest with a modified exchange. Namely,; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00235.html (9,733 bytes)
14. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:39:26 -0600; And everyone MUST have a computer. I guess if your computer dies during the test you are done But sure someone could do this. "A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you ma; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00251.html (11,204 bytes)
15. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:17:09 +0500; This has already been suggested by KY1V two days ago in this reflector. This will not work. 1) there are still people that contest without computer. 2) If the checksum algorithm is public, nothing pr; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00252.html (12,214 bytes)
16. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: "Robert Chudek - K0RC" <k0rc@citlink.net>; Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:29:34 -0500; "This would be a good contest for improving coping of call signs and exchanges. The negative is the contester couldn't log the casual operator who dropped by to hand out a QSO, to work DX, or maybe s; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00258.html (11,985 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking (score: 1): Author: Ed Steeble <esteeble@sc.rr.com>; Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:27:12 -0400; Bob, Regarding: > Wouldn't it be just like you would do w/o a check sum, ask for a repeat? However the repeat should include the call and checksum too, not just the RST and serial number. Part of thi; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00277.html (13,305 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 17
Page: [1]