The following is to the best of MY recollection (IE, may not be 100% accurate).
Back in the paper log days, CQWW had a "rule" that permitted up to 3% or 4%
DUPES in the log.
I don't remember the exact number.
This was because guys had a tough time keeping up with a paper dupe sheet.
It was then noted that some TOP entrants always seemed to have exactly the
number of DUPES
"allowed," but never exceeding the DUPE limit. This pissed off the guys
checking the logs because it
was NOT the intended spirit of the rule.
I think at one point, the "rule" was changed to allowing 1% DUPES (or maybe it
was just
discussed...can't recall), again to allow for "slop" in paper dupe sheets. In
the end, it was
agreed that there would be a penalty for DUPES, because really, top guys should
not have any
DUPES in their logs. Back then (paper), as all of you OT's know, all logs were
not checked....
just the top logs. Checking including confirming all of the Mults per page
MANUALLY, assigning
the points for each QSO MANUALLY, adding up the points per page MANUALLY,
looking for DUPES
manually, and even recreating the Summary Sheet MANUALLY.
Shortly after the new rule was announced, some guys from a famous contest club
(no, I won't
tell you which one) stated that if they worked a DUPE, then they would simply
change it
slightly to a unique (busted) call. Remember, finding busted calls back then
required the log-
checkers to have a strong knowledge of callsigns, so if the call was altered
into something
"close" to the right structure, it would be hard to find. And so, the DUPE
penalty was
instantly expanded to include BUSTED CALLS, even if not crosschecked (which was
something
quite rare to happen).
Years later, thanks initially to K1EA and CT, and then later other DOS kings,
DUPES were
identified on the fly in real time. AND, contest sponsors wanted all QSOs,
even dupes, to
be logged. Hence, no more penalty DUPES.
Also with computers, contest sponsors could now identify uniques and busted
calls. As is the
case today, Uniques still get a "pass," even though statistically, U = B with a
very, very high
probability. But not all U = B and we all know that all it takes is ONE
confirmation that a U
was NOT a B for whining to begin. So U's still "count."
And yes, per the multiple other replies, the penalty is supposed to help
improve accuracy
by placing a high cost/benefit ratio on "not being sure, but logging it anyway."
Now please go back and read the first sentence again.
de Doug KR2Q
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|