At 10:24 AM 3/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>More opinions on the UBN reports...
>
>I believe that contest sponsors should make these types of reports public
>and we as contesters should be using this data for self improvement.
>CQWW's example of WWW access to this information shows that this type of
>reporting can be done.
>
>Is there anyone on here that would not enter CQWW if the rules stated
>that by entering the contest you agree for your UBN report to be a matter
>of public record?
I am still trying to completely understand the UBM reports and I find them
confusing for some circumstances. From what I have figured out so far makes
me believe that I would only agree to share my UBM information if all UBM
information and logs of all participants were available for investigation.
The trouble with the UBM reports is that they don't tell the whole story.
In many cases the only way a CQWW log checker can objectively judge your
log is to see the other logs for cross-checking. If he can't do that, then
his log-checking is less than objective.
Some examples would be NH7As problem of having his CQs answered by people
that supposeably didn't log him. It is clear that the calling station got
the call wrong or was responding to an incorrect packet spot. The checker
needs to look at the OTHER log to see what was logged before blame is
assessed.
And how about the not-in-log problems where a USA station doesn't get
logged by another USA station. The checker needs to see the other log to
see if the other station was on the band in question. What happened can be
obvious by knowing that information. As long as a contest makes it
necessary to have zero point QSOs you will always have this problem. Please
don't tell me to write a nasty letter to the offending station because I
believe it is the CQWW committee's job to ensure that people submit
accurate logs, or they should be penalized.
What about your call being removed by a multi-op because he is "fixing" his
logs to meet the band change rules. A review of the other log is necessary
to afix blame in this case also.
What is the source of the "non-existant callsign" database? Can I be
confident that it is accurate. If I get a QSL card from the non-existant DX
station, what is my recourse to have the blemish removed from my log?
When I was on the CQWW committee, the logs for other stations (outside of
your checking responsibility) were generally not available. The main reason
was that there wasn't enough time to get them for crosschecking and meet
the publishing deadlines. And it was not uncommon for me to get a summary
sheet without any logs because the log disk was pulled before it got to me.
Back then, the stuff that was sent in on disk was only available to a core
CQWW group that played with it but didn't make it readily available to the
other CQWW log checkers. I hope that situation has changed now because it
should be easier to get that information across the internet from a master
database. That will make the log checkers job easier and more timely to
accurately crosscheck logs.
If I were the CQWW, I would not want all the information to be available to
the general public. There is too much opportunity for the participants to
find fault with the log checker's decisions regarding the UBM reports and
the eventual status of a log. And believe me, people would nit-pick their
decisions.
My post is not meant to be critical of the CQWW committee. Those guys work
hard, get no pay, and have to meet unreasonable deadlines for publication.
I think their heart is in the right place trying to show all of us how we
can be more accurate contestors with the UBM reports. But I am afraid that
the UBM reports will cause some quick conclusions to be formed that might
be inaccurate. ALL of the CQWW contest's log information must be available
for objective conclusions to be made.
73, Richard
K5NA@BGA.COM
http://www.realtime.net/~k5na
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|