CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] UBN

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] UBN
From: "Steve.Root@culligan.com" <steve.root@culligan4water.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 12:35:18 +0100
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I can envision several different scenarios where I would get penalized by
the log checkers through no fault of my own.  I'm going to lose points for
mistakes I didn't make.  It's unavoidable.

But isn't this true for everyone who submits a log?

As long as we all get judged the same I don't think it makes any difference.
Modern log checking is a huge improvement over previous methods.

The only rational way to look at this is to compare your error rate to the
top guys.  If they're doing a lot better, then you probably could too.  If
you're in the ball park, then relax and enjoy the contest.  The only way to
have a perfect UBN is to repeat calls and exchanges with the first guy you
work in the contest for the next 48 hours to make sure you both "have it
right".  That won't do much for your score, however.

73 Steve K0SR


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
To: <K3BU@aol.com>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] K3BU SSB UBN


> Yuri,
>
> Have you looked at how you penalty-rate compares with other
> stations? As hard as it may be to swallow, Yuri, this penalty-rate
> may be "par for the course" or perhaps even above average,
> especially when you consider that this is 40 meter SSB where
> multiple stations can be listening on the same split QRG and
> foreign BC is wall-to-wall on the European side.
>
> If you feel so strongly about this issue and are so sure about
> your inerrancy, I suggest you start recording the contests,
> and then if you find cases where you clearly have been
> unfairly penalized, you can make the recordings public so
> we can all judge for ourselves. Otherwise, we are all left
> to wonder if this disappearing QSO conspiracy is a real
> phenomenon or just the product of someones over-inflated
> sense of their own infallability :):)
>
> 73 de Mike, W4EF................................
> .
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <K3BU@aol.com>
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:49 PM
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] K3BU SSB UBN
>
>
> > Just to add a little more fueal into the fire:-)
> >
> > Those are the -N in CQ WW SSB on 40m by K3BU
> >
> > 35 -N OM7M(3204)
> > 107 -N ED3SSB(1184)
> > 163 -N CE3BFZ(1730)
> > 198 -N RK0AXX(2616)
> > 233 -N T94FC(395)
> > 253 -N SZ1A(2779)
> > 255 -N SA5W(615)
> > 262 -N SN1D(2067)
> >
> > Why am I not in their logs?  They are all no slouch stations judging by
> > their
> > high numbers, I know I worked them (or someone signing their calls) 8
> > weird
> > QSOs times four = 32 QSOs penalized me for no errors of mine. What
lesson
> > do I
> > learn? 3 QSO penalty is forcing me to learn, but what?
> >
> > I know I fought hard to work them on 40m split. They said my call, we
> > exchanged reports. No guessing. Life goes on :-)
> >
> > 73 Yuri, K3BU
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>