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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Public\s+Logs\s*$/: 106 ]

Total 106 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Public logs (score: 1): Author: DL8MBS <prickler.schneider@t-online.de>; Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:46:47 +0200; Which contests are publishing the logs together with the results? I know of the EU-sprint, but perhaps there are more. Thanks in advance for any hints. 73, Chris (www.dl8mbs.de) _____________________; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-04/msg00134.html (6,269 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: "Ward Silver" <hwardsil@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:44:22 -0800; You may choose not to share the details of your station or your methods of operation that can not be deduced from a public record of your QSO's. But all of the contacts were completely public. When; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00298.html (7,984 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:04:24 -0500; Ward, DXCC rules prohibit publishing complete logs. In the end, the publishing of complete logs could result in disallowance of DXCC credit for "contest DXpedition" QSOs and ultimately the disqualifi; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00322.html (11,592 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: "Ward Silver" <hwardsil@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:16:27 -0800; And trading music files is also strictly forbidden by legal statute. Yet these activities persist and are widespread. The music industry has for years been in denial of the facts on the ground but ha; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00324.html (13,204 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: "Gerry Hull" <gerry@w1ve.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:46:45 -0500; Joe, How come you have not been yelling at CQ?? Logs have been public for CQWW for the over a year now... and you and I both know that CQWW is a much more popular contest among DXCC hounds than ARRL; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00329.html (13,048 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:10:49 -0700; A mistake made by a former ARRL employee. I look forward to it being corrected by a current ARRL employee. 2006 CQWW logs are already public. And no DXCC credit has yet been removed, nor is it likely; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00330.html (8,422 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <nn3w@cox.net>; Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:26:18 -0500; Excuse me? Why should contest sponsors have to answer to the whims of one award program? The ARRL's DXCC program is not the final word when it comes down to record keeping, log posting, QSL sending,; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00334.html (10,560 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: "Nodir M. Tursoon-Zadeh" <ey8mm@tjpro.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:15:54 +0500; Directly contest sponsor shouldn't care. Indirectly yes. Last contest I worked few new ones on 160. Why should I loose them for DXCC? I better work them before contest. If this question is not fixed; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00337.html (8,836 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:43:26 -0500; It is completely unnecessary for CQ or any contest sponsor to release logs for every Tom, Dick and database compiler. There are plenty of tools if they get off their fat, lazy, old asses and make th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00340.html (9,399 bytes)
10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:03:58 -0500; If that is a mistake, it needs to be removed from the ARRL web site and the rule needs to be changed. Until it is changed, NO CONTEST SPONSOR has any right to make public the log of any entrant - pa; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00342.html (10,382 bytes)
11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org>; Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:32:03 -0600 (CST); I don't see it as a mistake. DXpedition A works W9SG on CW but logs it as W9SZ. W9SZ goes and looks at the complete logs, sees all the QSO info there and sends for a card which is issued by the DXped; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00345.html (9,861 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:36:12 +0100; I wonder why in this case W9SZ would go and look at the log? 73 Peter I don't see it as a mistake. DXpedition A works W9SG on CW but logs it as W9SZ. W9SZ goes and looks at the complete logs, sees al; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00347.html (9,076 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: "doug smith" <dougw9wi@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:09:42 -0600; We don't want to publish the raw logs because someone might find a call similar to theirs in the log & use it to claim a QSL for a QSO they didn't make. We want to publish the raw logs because it mig; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00348.html (9,390 bytes)
14. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: Steve Harrison <k0xp@dandy.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:50:46 +0000; It's not merely contests; some DXpeditions also upload logs (although I don't know of any that have uploaded ALL the QSO data). The ongoing XF4 expedition claims they'll upload their logs to their we; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00350.html (9,496 bytes)
15. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:43:53 +0000; Either require the dxpedition logs be submitted to lotw where they can never be changed, or penalize them 3 qso's for every busted call in their log! I think I'll publish all the logs I have ever mad; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00351.html (12,496 bytes)
16. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:31:56 +0000; I'm a contester and don't care about dxcc... anyone who wants to publish my logs may feel free to do so! No matter where I may go on an expedition to! David Robbins K1TTT e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.ne; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00352.html (14,338 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <nn3w@cox.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:02:54 -0500; Sure they do. You agree by the terms of the contest rules. The contest rules say that they may open the logs to public inspection. In any event, a QSO on the amateur spectrum is an inherently public; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00355.html (9,965 bytes)
18. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <nn3w@cox.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:00:23 -0500; No, actually its not. Folks have called for transparency in the log process and to have assurance that what is submitted is open for analysis. 99.5% of contesters applaud the CQ Committee's decision; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00356.html (11,835 bytes)
19. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: Mike Fatchett W0MU <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:46:00 -0700; Because people cheat! _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00358.html (9,970 bytes)
20. [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1): Author: Dennis OConnor <ad4hk2004@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:39:53 -0800 (PST); and demand the arrl remove dxcc credit for anyone who has me as their only W! I'll bet that creates a big uproar. ** Ahhh haaa, my kind of devious mind... Well, the times they are a changing <quote>; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00359.html (7,679 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]