Author: "\(K7ZO\) Scott Tuthill" <k7zo@cableone.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:37:17 -0700
Interesting thread on CHECKLOGS -- here is another view at least relative to CQWW. Every year when the UBN report comes out I look it over in detail and summarize its results and make recommendations
Great points. Can anyone explain to me why checklogs are even allowed anymore? Since uniques are not penalized I don't see how they serve any useful purpose at all. 73, Dave AB7E ____________________
Checklogs are extremely important and valuable. Every log received helps make the log checking better by enabling more cross checking. There are many people who want to help out with the log checking
Every year when the UBN report comes out I look it over in detail and Improving accuracy is good, but may not always be the end-all. We're striving for maximum score. Sometimes concentrating too much
The real point for me is ... if the contest rules specify that logs will be made public, why allow anonymity for anyone who still can affect the scores of others? That may be "no issue for the sponso
IMHO, the way to get more logs submitted is to make it more attractive for people to submit their log. From what I've read, I get the impression that most - way more than half - of people who partici
One of the reasons many contesters don't submit logs (that I know about first hand) is they are logging with a non-contest software package that does not generate a Cabrillo formatted file. The major
That, Dave, is a reason that some logs are not submitted. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- "By submitting a log to the CW WW Contest, the entrant agrees to have the log open to the public." Dave AB7E ___________
Hi Jack (et al), Agreed! And although this isn't an issue specifically related to check logs, I've been wondering about this for at least ten years now. It seems that all it takes to be QRO is the mo
If you really want more logs, revive the practice ARRL had back in the 70s, and allow credit toward any awards you have, for QSOs that are in both logs. CQ could do it for WAZ and show the way. The B
Great idea, below, and it's come up before. The practice applied only to DXCC and I'm certain that it had to be abandoned because it was an administrative, time-consuming, nightmare at arrl hq. The G
Count on it, Jim. What was an administrative nightmare in 1977 is scarcely even worth mentioning in 2011 - all it requires is the will. 73, Pete N4ZR The World Contest Station Database, updated daily
I support this idea. I always upload my logs to LOTW whether I enter the contest or not. I feel like that the ARRL has never been entirely on board with LOTW. We were promised that other awards would
Jim, My understanding from current and former Hq people I've talked with is that this practice (giving DXCC credit based on logs submitted for the ARRL DX contests) was discontinued sometime in the e
I'd say with a multi-day backlog at the moment combined with nearly 380 million uploaded QSOs that LoTW is very much alive and well. In fact, the combination of the CQWW SSB and SS contests have made
While we are waiting for that, wouldn't it be great if the logger programs would generate the LOTW file at the same time they generate the Cabrillo file? That way we would not have to start up anothe
When did I NOT say that LotW wasn't alive & well? W5VX speculated that "the ARRL has never been entirely on board with LOTW". I was just pointing out that Wayne N7NG was a big, vocal proponent of it
There's another point in all of this, and K1AR hit the nail on the head: I'd say with a multi-day backlog at the moment combined with nearly 380 If we are to seriously integrate LOTW into a contest s