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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Working\s+dupes\s*$/: 25 ]

Total 25 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Working Dupes (score: 1): Author: drussell@knox.net (Don Russell); Date: Mon Dec 13 22:20:28 1999; Ron, With all the computer logging that goes on during the contest there are only a few reasons why a QSO is a dupe and none of them are good. He busted your call. You busted his call. He (or you) th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00090.html (8,532 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] Working Dupes (score: 1): Author: rfm@pensfa.org (Rich McAllister K6RFM); Date: Mon Dec 13 22:48:31 1999; As a 100% S&P'er with (sigh) less-than-perfect copy skills, this is why I prefer you to tell me "K6RFM SRI WRK B4" than to just work me again. I can usually figure out where I busted the call and fix; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00092.html (8,333 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] Working Dupes (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR); Date: Tue Dec 14 14:24:40 1999; In either of these cases, it would be good to know that a busted contact took place, so you could correct the previous log entry. Otherwise, one or both of you will lose points for this contact. In t; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00098.html (9,491 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] Working Dupes (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Tue Dec 14 15:43:21 1999; W2XXX works HG1S, but logs HG1H. Later, W2XXX calls HG1S. HG1S thinks W2XXX is a dupe, but works him anyway. When the log checking occurs: HG1S's log has W2XXX in it, twice. One QSO counts; the othe; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00099.html (8,693 bytes)
5. [CQ-Contest] Working Dupes (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Wed Dec 15 08:43:45 1999; OK. My example of HG1S vs. HG1H leaves a little to be desired. I was answering a post that said that there was no conceivable way for this to happen: <snip> <snip> I was trying to show an example of; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00101.html (8,864 bytes)
6. [CQ-Contest] Working Dupes (score: 1): Author: CP2235@aol.com (CP2235@aol.com); Date: Wed Dec 15 04:09:54 1999; Not if HG1S sent in his log. Only "true uniques" count. A "true unique" is a unique where you cant prove the opposite. During the log checking process, the software generates a list of "possible cal; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00106.html (8,401 bytes)
7. [CQ-Contest] Working Dupes (score: 1): Author: kr1g@hotmail.com (ted demopoulos); Date: Tue Dec 14 19:34:11 1999; A great example, but lets be serious. If HG1S makes a couple of thousand Qs at their normal speed in a CW test, and you log HG1H, its NOT going to be a unique :) Oh, I'm pretty sure, I almost made th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00110.html (7,914 bytes)
8. [CQ-Contest] Working Dupes (score: 1): Author: ua9cdc@dialup.mplik.ru (Igor Sokolov); Date: Wed Dec 15 04:08:43 1999; That may take too much valuable time. I would just work him and make a note to check previous contact later (e.g. when the contest is over). Then if you are in doubt about the first contact and abso; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00114.html (10,224 bytes)
9. [CQ-Contest] Working Dupes (score: 1): Author: K4BAI@worldnet.att.net (John T. Laney, III); Date: Tue Dec 14 17:24:58 1999; I think most checking software would show HG1H as a "busted call" based on the fact that it is one off of HG1S and the credit would be deleted (plus penalties in some contests). That was originally t; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00116.html (8,805 bytes)
10. [CQ-Contest] Working Dupes (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Tue Dec 14 16:40:20 1999; attempt Surely. I should have stated "in some contests" and "at one time". There are (were?) cases where this is true. I was trying to give an example of how one could work the same guy twice and get; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00117.html (8,919 bytes)
11. [CQ-Contest] Working Dupes (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR); Date: Tue Dec 14 16:18:09 1999; This varies by contest. Most log checking software is much more sophisticated than you describe, although the final adjudication is still performed by humans. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00118.html (8,290 bytes)
12. [CQ-Contest] Working Dupes (score: 1): Author: gdo@lucent.com (O Donnell, Glenn D Glenn); Date: Tue Dec 14 23:27:59 1999; I'll offer another reason for working dupes. I actually fell victim to this myself in the ARRL 10m Contest this weekend and I had to sheepishly ask for several dupes. My deepest apologies to those of; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00122.html (8,355 bytes)
13. [CQ-Contest] Working Dupes (score: 1): Author: sdelling@facstaff.wisc.edu (Scott Ellington); Date: Tue Dec 14 15:10:55 1999; Likewise, if HG1H turned out to be an invalid call, W2XXX would have been penalized, and rightly so. The only way to avoid the penalty at this point is to ask HG1S when the first QSO occurred, thus w; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00124.html (8,451 bytes)
14. [CQ-Contest] Working Dupes (score: 1): Author: sdelling@facstaff.wisc.edu (Scott Ellington); Date: Wed Dec 15 10:16:40 1999; We've beaten this issue to death before, but I'll offer an idea that just occurred to me. There really is a dilemma when you work a dupe, as there could be another bad contact in your log. It would b; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00131.html (9,149 bytes)
15. [CQ-Contest] Working Dupes (score: 1): Author: gjk@hogpb.mt.att.com (Gerald J Kersus); Date: Wed Dec 15 10:15:58 1999; The paranoia about logging dupes is amazing. When called by a dupe, I usually just log it. The only exception is if a station calls again after only a few few minutes. I assume he was just working a; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-12/msg00134.html (8,161 bytes)
16. [CQ-Contest] Working dupes (score: 1): Author: Tree <tree@kkn.net>; Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 15:50:27 -0800; If the QSO shows up in both logs at some point - there can't be any NIL deductions. Essentially what the software has to do is count the first "QSO" as the dupe. Some people - like N6RO - have gotte; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-02/msg00015.html (7,686 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] Working dupes (score: 1): Author: mike l dormann <w7dra@juno.com>; Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:35:40 -0800; as hard as it is for me to work a station, i would appreciate it not being a dupe. sending a call as i did "W7DRA/0" there is no reason why anyone would dupe me. operating from NE one would think i w; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-02/msg00022.html (7,022 bytes)
18. Re: [CQ-Contest] Working dupes (score: 1): Author: Radiosporting Fan <radiosporting@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 03:58:43 -0800 (PST); applies only to the "robot" that Tree knows about. There is nothing keeping anyone else from writing their own that treats it differently. There is a Cabrillo spec. There is no Cabrillo Robot Spec, f; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-02/msg00025.html (7,677 bytes)
19. Re: [CQ-Contest] Working dupes (score: 1): Author: "Bob Naumann - W5OV" <W5OV@W5OV.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 07:11:54 -0600; I have not heard of any contest robot that *does not* work as N6TR describes. Until one exists that behaves otherwise, I think it is safe to assume that they all work like this. This model has become; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-02/msg00026.html (9,033 bytes)
20. Re: [CQ-Contest] Working dupes (score: 1): Author: "Mark Beckwith" <n5ot@n5ot.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:19:25 -0600; Actually a "robot" as the term is used in contesting, is a program that gives your log the once-over when you email it in. This conversation is about the log-checking program which figures out every; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-02/msg00033.html (8,055 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]