Well, Mr. Bill, looks like the world disagrees with you on this one.
We can't stop the progress of how technology affects contesting. N6AA ran this
kind of a program during WRTC for the competitors. It took a great deal of
effort, but did level the playing field to a large degree.
One big difference is that the WRTC competitors did not have any data base to
use for call signs and data. I wonder how many competitors are using super-
check data bases to ensure their log accuracy? Aren't super-check data bases
the antichrist of the new log checking programs? After all, if you had a data
base of checks and sections, you could almost guarantee clean exchanges
(except for busted calls and numbers).
My station log (K7GJ) was not looked at after the contest was over and it was
hit pretty hard by the log checking program. A super-check data base would
have avoided many of the errors. Learning from the data and self improving is
a much better choice, however.
I applaud the new checking criteria. It does, however beg another look at the
penalty criterion. If a station's information is copied incorrectly in 10
logs, should not the sending station be penalized? Should there be a finite
number of logs a call appears in before it is counted? Should mults be lost
for copying errors? Just questions.
This is my 40th year in contesting. If contesting is not continuous
incremental self improvement, I'm outta here!!
Tom Taormina, K5RC/K7GJ
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|