Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Updated\s+CQWW\s+2017\s+CW\s+Results\s+Posted\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Updated\s+CQWW\s+2017\s+CW\s+Results\s+Posted\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Updated CQWW 2017 CW Results Posted (score: 1): Author: John Dorr <cqk1ar@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 09:21:53 -0400; Good morning! As you may be aware, it was previously announced by CQ that all results for the 2017 CQ World Wide DX Contest would be re-scored based on the return to the usual and accepted methodolog; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-05/msg00061.html (7,337 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Updated CQWW 2017 CW Results Posted (score: 1): Author: ktfrog007--- via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 11:11:24 -0400; GM John, What was the methodology change for handling duplicate QSOs? Dupes always seem to be a problem as many think dupes will result in a score reduction or penalty. I was told this was a leftover; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-05/msg00064.html (9,871 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Updated CQWW 2017 CW Results Posted (score: 1): Author: John Dorr <cqk1ar@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 14:08:16 -0400; Hi Ken, Common convention is that duplicate QSOs are never penalized but simply ignored in the course of checking a log. For the CW contest, this policy was changed to where duplicates not appearing; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-05/msg00067.html (11,139 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Updated CQWW 2017 CW Results Posted (score: 1): Author: Ed W0YK <ed@w0yk.com>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 18:56:35 -0400; This current scoring change eliminates a scoring change made during CQ WW CW log checking. IOW, there is no scoring change to discuss now. 73,Ed W0YK -- Original message --From: ktfrog007-- via CQ-C; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-05/msg00070.html (10,545 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]