Ken,
Great After Action Report of your CQWW LOG and good to hear that the LCR report
holds up under your log checking scrutiny !!
Your dedication to improving your skills and giving the rest of us faith in
the LCR check does not go unnoticed and is greatly appreciated !
73, Dennis N6KI
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 11:31:24 -0700
From: "Ken Widelitz" <widelitz@gte.net>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Accuracy of VY2TT CQWW CW 2010 Log Checking
Report
To: "'CQ-Contest'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <00b201cc851f$52453750$f6cfa5f0$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I've just completed listening to my recording of the errors in my log
flagged by the CQWW CW 2010 Log Checking Report. My conclusion is the LCR
software and reviewers do a great job.
Not surprisingly, of the 92 errors flagged as bad calls, only one was
actually copied correctly.
I had K4BX in my log. The LCR said the correct
call was K2AX. K4BX didn't submit a log. K2AX had me in his log with a 2
minute difference. I didn't have K2AX in my log on that band. I don't see
any way to avoid that type of bad flag.
I asked for a fill on 7 of those bad calls, and still got it wrong. 15 times
the other station corrected me, but I didn't correct my log and still got it
wrong. What I found surprising was the number of stations that didn't bother
to correct me.
Many of the busted calls were on S / H, D / B and U / V characters. Now if
only I can improve on those pairs. Only one was an obvious typo with 4
characters in the suffix
Of the 25 NILs, 13 sounded like good QSOs on the recording. A few of those
NILs even confirmed a 2nd time. No idea how to avoid those. Of the
remaining, most were NILs because I hit the TU VY2TT key too fast and the
QSO partner
didn't hear me confirm. I know I'm twitchy on the TU key and
have to be slow it down. On just one of the NILs did I log the call when
there was clearly no QSO. I had a real lid moment on the 2nd radio and
started CQing after calling a station that didn't come back to me.
What I did find surprising was of the 28 uniques, 14 were actually good
calls. I've always thought about 90% of uniques are copy errors that can't
be confirmed as errors.
Percentagewise, not surprisingly, Sunday late afternoon and evening had more
errors and lid moments.
Nothing like listening to all your lid moments to put a dent in the ego.
73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:53:41 -0600
From: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Accuracy of VY2TT CQWW CW 2010 Log Checking
Report
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <4E8F58C5.5090202@w0mu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Interesting comments Ken. I am not sure I would up for the task of
going back and listening to it again. HI!
Mike W0MU
J6/W0MU November 21 - December 1 2011 CQ WW DX CW
W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net
On 10/7/2011 12:31 PM, Ken Widelitz wrote:
> I've just completed listening to my recording of the errors in my log
> flagged by the CQWW CW 2010 Log Checking Report. My conclusion is the LCR
> software
and reviewers do a great job.
>
>
>
> Not surprisingly, of the 92 errors flagged as bad calls, only one was
> actually copied correctly. I had K4BX in my log. The LCR said the correct
> call was K2AX. K4BX didn't submit a log. K2AX had me in his log with a 2
> minute difference. I didn't have K2AX in my log on that band. I don't see
> any way to avoid that type of bad flag.
>
>
>
> I asked for a fill on 7 of those bad calls, and still got it wrong. 15 times
> the other station corrected me, but I didn't correct my log and still got it
> wrong. What I found surprising was the number of stations that didn't bother
> to correct me.
>
>
>
> Many of the busted calls were on S / H, D / B and U / V characters. Now if
> only I can improve on those pairs. Only one was an obvious typo with 4
> characters in the
suffix
>
>
>
> Of the 25 NILs, 13 sounded like good QSOs on the recording. A few of those
> NILs even confirmed a 2nd time. No idea how to avoid those. Of the
> remaining, most were NILs because I hit the TU VY2TT key too fast and the
> QSO partner didn't hear me confirm. I know I'm twitchy on the TU key and
> have to be slow it down. On just one of the NILs did I log the call when
> there was clearly no QSO. I had a real lid moment on the 2nd radio and
> started CQing after calling a station that didn't come back to me.
>
>
>
> What I did find surprising was of the 28 uniques, 14 were actually good
> calls. I've always thought about 90% of uniques are copy errors that can't
> be confirmed as errors.
>
>
>
> Percentagewise, not surprisingly, Sunday late afternoon and evening had more
> errors and lid
moments.
>
>
>
> Nothing like listening to all your lid moments to put a dent in the ego.
>
>
>
> 73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:44:53 -0400
From: Geoffrey Way <wayg@cape-vision.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Web SDR's and 'Cheating'
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <4E8F8EF5.3000803@cape-vision.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
SDR's aren't a bad thing, we should just take care about how
we make
them available via the internet...
How would it work if users were advised that what they are
hearing
is intentionally delayed by a random length of time anywhere
between
30 to 90 seconds? Wouldn't that allow us to encourage other
listeners
without fueling unethical behavior?
-- KA1IOR
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:34:46 -0700
From: Ed Muns <w0yk@msn.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] NA RTTY Sprint
Tomorrow!
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP1088780CD91D0B6EAB8F06C90FF0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Remember the NA RTTY Sprint runs from 00-04z on Sunday, 9 October. This is
Saturday evening, NA time. This is a short, fun contest that really builds
operating skill, so don't miss it!
There will be a practice tonight from 0230-0300z, 8 October (Friday night NA
time).
Team registration of up to 10 single-ops per team should be made before the
contest starts at http://www.ncjweb.com/rttysprintteamreg.php
Upload your log using the
online webform at
http://www.ncjweb.com/sprintlogsubmit.php
Rules at http://www.ncjweb.com/sprintrules.php
Most of all, have fun!
Ed - W0YK
NA RTTY Sprint Manager
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 21:22:47 -0400
From: "Bud Trench" <aa3b.bud@gmail.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] 2011 Pa QSO Party Plans
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <C818E3B9B2614021AB2F414980EB8751@LAPTRENCH>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The Pennsylvania QSO Party runs this weekend. Rules are
available at:
http://www.nittany-arc.net/paqsorules.html
A partial list of active stations, including routes for Mobiles and Rovers,
is available at:
http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/paqso/2011-October/004809.html
I hope to see you on many bands!
73 Bud AA3B
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 11:09:43 +0200
From: "Ivo Pezer E73A/9A3A" <ivo.pezer@alice.it>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Post contest log massaging (the issue in a
nutshell -maybe?)
To: <kr2q@optimum.net>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <D1A2E01E36D0499297ADED24EDBF6456@ibm1bf94a896b9>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
I fully agree with your comments Doug.
Paperlog time is over and there is no need for a 30 day submission period.
In the old days post contest dupe checking was a must, task on its own, but
had to be done in order not to claim credit for duplicate QSOs. 30 day
period for a log submission in those years made sense. Today, when none of
the top scorers submitts a paper log, edditing after the contest, using all
possible means includig "ears' of others to decode what has not been decoded
during the contest is clearly outside the time allocated for competition. By
listening your own log and editting errors made during
possible "reduced
concentration" periods is to me extending contest time beyond the time set
by the rules.
When NBA game is over, there are no more attempts for "nearly 3 pointer"
misses. In our hobby it seem to be allowed and (ab)used to compensate not
only for the obvious typos, but also operating skills.
Having read TF4M mail about Topband DX-ing using a remote RX makes me think
that fair competition days are nowadays even more heavily influenced by
technology. If technology is used to gain advantage against the rules,
record charts will become meaningless soon.
Fight against the technology cheaters requires focusing more on the
anti-cheating technology, which, I am happy to note, seem to be used more
and more by various contest committees.
73 Ivo I7/9A3A
----- Original Message -----
From: <kr2q@optimum.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 9:34 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Post contest log massaging (the issue in a
nutshell -maybe?)
> Here is MY 2 cents, not in any way to be construed as having anything to
> do with any
> contest committee with which I may be associated.
>
> Some entrants (aka "competitors") have lost sight of what it means to be a
> competitor versus
> what it means to be the judging/adjudicating body.
>
> Entrants compete during the designated period. After the contest, IMHO,
> they should NOT
> be reviewing their log with the intent of finding "errors" for the purpose
> of CORRECTING
> them.
>
> The role of the
judges/adjudicators is to review the log and find "errors"
> and, as appropriate,
> apply the mandated deductions and penalties, yielding an adjudicated final
> score.
>
> Attempting to classify various logged elements as "typographical mistakes"
> is simply a very
> slippery slope. If you log, KKKRRR as a complete callsign, sure, that is
> very likely a
> "typographical error." If you log KR2QQ (me), is that a copying error or
> a logging error?
> More difficult to say. If you work NV6O but logged N4BO (copying error),
> should the entrant
> review some database or other knowledge base (cluster, other logs, or
> other ops) and then
> somehow "determine" that was really NV6O and CHANGE THE CALL after the
> contest ends?
>
> I am guessing that "most" of us would not have an issue "removing" KKKRRR
> from the
log
> (nobody is going to get dinged for that as a NIL). I am guessing that
> most of us (but not
> all), would say that correcting N4BO into NV6O is out-and-out cheating.
>
> Solution? If possible, "No post contest changing of anything in the log."
> I mean really, how
> many KKKRRR errors are there going to be? Enough to alter the place of
> finish? I sure hope
> not! For me, both of the "other" types were errors made during the heat
> of the battle and
> should STAND as an included part of the log. That is what is genuinely
> REPRESENTATIVE
> of YOUR ACTUAL EFFORT as recorded DURING the contest...and for me, that is
> what should
> count.
>
> So, in summary....
> Entrants should compete DURING the contest. Judges should adjudicate
> after the contest.
>
> de Doug
KR2Q
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 11:33:40 +0200
From: "Ivo Pezer E73A/9A3A" <ivo.pezer@alice.it>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] End of contest and rewriting log
To: "Jack/W6NF" <vhfplus@gmail.com>, "rob beaudoin"
<wa1fcn@charter.net>
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <4BEBF138C5A542D980F7AC30383DA693@ibm1bf94a896b9>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
The WRTC rules include post-contest (limited time) for note/log-reconciling
prior to submission. If other contest organizers follow this example, than
they should also find the way of ensuring that the log has not indeed been
edited beyond this time and limit the time, at least for top score
contenders....RRDXC rules are coming close to that.
73 Ivo I7/9A3A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack/W6NF" <vhfplus@gmail.com>
To: "rob beaudoin" <wa1fcn@charter.net>
Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] End of contest and rewriting log
> If an operator notes an error during the contest and makes appropriate
> notes
> to him/herself how could anyone possibly rationalize *not* permitting
> corrections, even after the contest. I understand the impropriety of
> making
> changes based on outside information, but from your own notes made at, or
> shortly after, the time the error was detected??? I think not.
>
> 73,
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:12 PM, rob beaudoin <wa1fcn@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> OK this is a legitimate concern of mine.
>> KA1QQQ has a fast run of station going KX1XYZ calls
>> him......He gets loged as KA1XYX In logging next qso he notices
>> previous qso should of been KX1XYZ.. Many stations
>> are calling and he just jots down on paper #305 KX1XYZ latter
>> KZ6XXX calls and gets loged as zone 3.
>> Then operator says darn he said zone 5.
>> So jots down on paper #409 zone 5.
>> Latter station calls and gives him name John in hastes he gets
>> loged as Jim. Operator says darn he said John. operator jots down
>> on paper # 455 John. 23:59:59 contest is over. Operator looks at
>> a dozen or so paper notes and makes
all corrections.
>> Is this OK ? You say no .... how about this at 23:45 operator
>> stops contest and makes all corrections in a few minutes,
>> now is it ok? I do not know it for a fact, but believe
>> this is a common practice. Would this be considered
>> rewriting or masageing your log ??
>> BoB WA1FCN
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jack, W6NF
> Silver Springs, NV
> DM09ji
>
_______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 07:04:42 -0600
From: Barry <w2up@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Accuracy of VY2TT CQWW CW 2010 Log Checking
Report
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <4E904A6A.1050106@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I once went back and listened to my recorded CQWW CW QSOs to hear the
dinged QSOs again. For the most part, the removed calls were done
correctly. There were a few instances where the other station sent his
own call incorrectly (!) and a few that were removed as busted for no
apparent reason, at least from what transpired over the air - even a few
for which I received QSLs.
Barry W2UP
On 10/7/2011 1:53 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> Interesting comments Ken. I am not sure I would up for the task of
> going back and listening to it again. HI!
>
> Mike W0MU
>
> J6/W0MU November 21 - December 1 2011 CQ WW DX CW
> W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net
>
>
> On 10/7/2011 12:31 PM, Ken Widelitz
wrote:
>> I've just completed listening to my recording of the errors in my log
>> flagged by the CQWW CW 2010 Log Checking Report. My conclusion is the LCR
>> software and reviewers do a great job.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not surprisingly, of the 92 errors flagged as bad calls, only one was
>> actually copied correctly. I had K4BX in my log. The LCR said the correct
>> call was K2AX. K4BX didn't submit a log. K2AX had me in his log with a 2
>> minute difference. I didn't have K2AX in my log on that band. I don't see
>> any way to avoid that type of bad flag.
>>
>>
>>
>> I asked for a fill on 7 of those bad calls, and still got it wrong. 15 times
>> the other station corrected me, but I didn't correct my log and still got it
>> wrong. What I found surprising was the number of stations that didn't bother
>>
to correct me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Many of the busted calls were on S / H, D / B and U / V characters. Now if
>> only I can improve on those pairs. Only one was an obvious typo with 4
>> characters in the suffix
>>
>>
>>
>> Of the 25 NILs, 13 sounded like good QSOs on the recording. A few of those
>> NILs even confirmed a 2nd time. No idea how to avoid those. Of the
>> remaining, most were NILs because I hit the TU VY2TT key too fast and the
>> QSO partner didn't hear me confirm. I know I'm twitchy on the TU key and
>> have to be slow it down. On just one of the NILs did I log the call when
>> there was clearly no QSO. I had a real lid moment on the 2nd radio and
>> started CQing after calling a station that didn't come back to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> What I did find surprising was of
the 28 uniques, 14 were actually good
>> calls. I've always thought about 90% of uniques are copy errors that can't
>> be confirmed as errors.
>>
>>
>>
>> Percentagewise, not surprisingly, Sunday late afternoon and evening had more
>> errors and lid moments.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing like listening to all your lid moments to put a dent in the ego.
>>
>>
>>
>> 73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
--
Barry Kutner, W2UP Lakewood, CO
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 08:30:19 -0500
From: Doug Smith <dougw9wi@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] End of contest and rewriting log
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <4E90506B.4010403@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Given the nature of the contest this data may be of limited value, but... The
Tennessee QSO Party allows roughly 30 days for submission of entries.
That period closed on Thursday. Offered without comment:
- Received on the night of the contest: 39 logs
- Received through the day after the contest: 88
- Received through the week after the contest: 177
- Received within two weeks of the contest: 197
- Received within three weeks of the contest: 204
- Received within four weeks of the contest: 215
The vast majority of logs were received within 7 days of the end of the
contest, but only about a third within 24
hours.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN EM66
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 15:12:03 -0000
From: "N7mal" <n7mal@citlink.net>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] AZ QSO Party
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <81F1141D2F6E41D5A0698CB3AFC5CD1B@N7MAL98>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
This also the weekend for the Arizona QSO Party. The link to the rules is
below.
If you hear me please give me a call.
Good Luck to any/all who participate.
73
http://www.azqsoparty.org/rules.html
MAL
N7MAL
BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
http://www.n7mal.com
Everyone in the world is
entitled to be burdened
by my opinion
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 106, Issue 10
*******************************************
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|