On 12/14/99 1:20, Don Russell at drussell@knox.net wrote:
>
>With all the computer logging that goes on during the contest there are
>only a few reasons why a QSO is a dupe and none of them are good.
>
>He busted your call.
>You busted his call.
In either of these cases, it would be good to know that a busted contact
took place, so you could correct the previous log entry. Otherwise, one
or both of you will lose points for this contact.
>He (or you) thought you worked each other, but he (or you) were 50 hz. off
>frequency working someone else.
In this case, you just need to work again, although one of you might lose
points.
>For some reason, one of you did not get the exchange right, as in your
>example, and deleted the QSO.
In this case, you need to work again, but if the log-checkers are
thorough, no one should lose any points.
>These are all good reasons why you should always work a dupe. If one of
>you gets credit for two QSO's because of this, then so be it.
I can't conceive of a series of events where anyone would get credited
for two QSOs in any of these scenarios.
>One thing I have noticed is that with everyone aware of the emphasis on log
>checking, dupes are down and repeats are slightly up. I think that is
>good. Make sure it is right.
It is probably expedient to just work the dupes and get on with it. But
in the first two cases, the correct course of action would be to identify
the errant QSO and correct it.
Most contests have relatively short exchanges, so any communication of
the QSO times or numbers wastes too much time. In ARRL Sweepstakes, the
exchange is quite long, (and has unique numbers) so correcting it might
be more expedient. (eg QSO B4 UR NR 123)
Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
Quote: "Boot, you transistorized tormentor! Boot!"
-- Archibald Asparagus, VeggieTales
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|