At 11:22 AM 10/1/99 +0400, Eric Scace wrote:
>2. My understanding of the discussion to date is that Cabrillo format log
>submissions do not list any QSOs which would be dupes.
My understanding of the format (which I commented on in its draft form) is
that all QSOs are included, whether they were identified by the submitting
contester as dupes or not. The underlying philosophy of the format appears
to be that with modern log checking techniques there is no need to penalize
contesters for unmarked dupes. A contester would simply not receive credit
for duplicate QSOs. Log checking software/methods will properly identify
and discard duplicate QSOs. Based on this, there is no need to mark
duplicate QSOs -- they are simply logged and reported in the format.
Elimination of duplicate QSOs from the Cabrillo-formatted submission could
result in loss of QSO credit in some circumstances. In Eric's example:
> -- I work RA3AUU at 01/1234z and log him. But, in fact, I did NOT get
>logged by RA3AUU for some reason.
> -- Later, RA3AUU calls me at 02/1405z and I work him again. Both of us
>log this QSO properly. The dupe contact is logged by my logging software.
> -- In my log submission in Cabrillo format, the second RA3AUU contact at
>02/1405z is not included because it is a dupe.
The answer to whether you receive proper credit depends on how the log
checking software/method matches QSOs. If it expects the matching QSOs to
have taken place within a limited time window (within expected error
between clock settings for example) then this scenario would result in a
NIL. However, if it ignores the time of the QSO and matches only based on
the band, then you would receive proper credit for the QSO. The log
checking for different contests may use either of these methods.
I believe the bottom line is log dupes, report all QSOs.
73 de Bruce, WA7BNM (firstname.lastname@example.org)
NAQP SSB Contest Manager
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com