Guys
Sorry for band width.
If you have an extra room at Dayton, and kind enough to give me,
please drop me a line.
My wife is willing to come with me, and I need a whole room.
Thanks in advance
73
de Jun
JH4RHF/KH2S/ZL1RH
**One of ZL9CI gang who made another history**
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>From Laurence Mason <laurence@lsil.com> Wed Mar 10 09:10:56 1999
From: Laurence Mason <laurence@lsil.com> (Laurence Mason)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Serial numbers in exchanges
Message-ID: <9903100910.AA01247@lonfs01.lsil.com>
>
>
> I don't think that the incorrect QSO numbers in a lot of logged
> entries are the fault of the receiving station. Several times when I
> have been SWLing during contests where QSO numbers are part of the
> report I have heard a station send the same number to two consecutive
> stations, send a decremmented number, skip forward several numbers
> and even send essentially random numbers. Part of this may be the
> fault of using keyers with automatic number generation. Some of it
> may be simply operator error. In nany case, when the QSO number in
> the log of the receiving station is off by one digit, I think it
> would be safe to assume that, at least part of the time, the
> incorrect QSO number was sent by the transmitting station. In such a
> case, it would only be fair to penalize both stations since the QSO
> is not valid unless a correct EXCHANGE of information takes place.
With computer analysis of the logs one could actually look to see how
many Q's the sending station has been in where there was an error in
the data received by the other station. This would show up that serials
were regularly sent incorrectly for example.
Now if you notice that one persons call is busted more often this could
be that:
1/ A difficult call
2/ Call sent too fast
3/ Call sent incorrectly
plus some more reasons that we could think of.
Who should suffer score reduction in this situation? I assume we all
want to improve accuracy? So, if the problem is with the sending
station, and we have a way of identifying this, should we not penalise
the sending station and not the receiving one. After all he received
what was actually sent - not what was meant to be sent!
Laurence G4HTD
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|