VR2002BG writes:
> However, expect them to put some extra effort to turn other Us into Bs
> as a result of your effort to convince them that some Bs were Us -
and AA4GA comments:
> That doesn't seem like a fair application of the process. Is this
> what CQ says, or is it supposition based on human nature, i.e. "Oh
> yeah, I'll show him"?
Well - which is more fair?
1. A non-automated process applied unevenly to a few logs. (This is the
old method of log checking before about 12 years ago).
2. An automated process that is evenly applied to all logs without any
special consideration given to any log.
3. An automated process applied to all logs, and a few of them get special
consideration where each possible questionable judgement is challenged
without any possibility of an equal amount of attention given to possible
errors that could result in the score being reduced?
Most log checking processes I know of will default to give credit unless some
criteria for busting the QSO is met. The criteria should be sufficient to have
a high degree of confidence that a call is wrong. In some cases, the wrong
decision might be made (when some number of improbable events line up).
However, it should be even more likely that there will be callsigns that are
really bad - but the checking process was unable to determine what the bad
callsign was... and therefore it was counted as a good QSO with a unique
callsign. Some manual work on the part of the log checker can probably
figure out what the busted call is - but they don't have time to do this
for all logs - so it gets done for none (except maybe for a pair of logs
that are very close in the results).
For example, in the ARRL DX contest - the log checking really stinks. I
would estimate that only about 25 percent of errors made are detected by
the program. Also, maybe one out of 100 of the bad calls is really good...
so the process isn't perfect. However, I would argue that it is effective.
Trying to improve the error detection in the ARRL contest will result
in a significant increase in the false bust rate - which I think would
be too high to defend.
I think that applying this process to all logs - without special consideration
is the most fair way to use it. When someone comes up with a case where
the wrong decision was made... I will look to see if a process change can
be made to address that specific case - which can then be used to re-run all
of the logs.
I think the important point to take away from this is that the first objective
of the log checking process is to make sure the order of finish is correct.
In other words, that the right person is winning the contest. I think having
a totally defendable 100 percent correct log checking report is not the goal.
In the NBA - no ref gets all of the calls right. However, they tend to get
most of them right and the errors tend to average out (and this coming from a
Portland Trailblazer fan no less).
It wouldn't be fair to let one of the teams challenge each call that goes
against them without the other team having the same opportunity.
As far as AA4GA's comment about log checkers not being willing to work
with him - I would sure like to know which contest that was for?? CQ WW?
What specifically was the problem? I don't believe this is the normal
experience for people who approach them.
73 Tree N6TR
tree@kkn.net
>From PY2NY - Vitor" <py2ny@arrl.net Wed Nov 13 02:24:23 2002
From: PY2NY - Vitor" <py2ny@arrl.net (PY2NY - Vitor)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQ - EA - Spain
Message-ID: <00b601c28abf$996c6680$4514d2c8@py2ny>
Hi Friends
(answer this message private to py2ny@arrl.net)
This message is for all contesters and DXers
in Spain, and I am using the best way to find
best sugestions about traveling your country,
like had before with other hams in other parts
of the World !! CQ-Contest reflector - Thanks
again !!!! Thanks !!!
---------------------------------------------
Mi mujer PU2VYT y yo viajaremos por España
in decembre y enero projimo. Nosotros no
hablamos muy bien la lengua, pero usando
el portugues creo que será facil hacer el
paseo. Llegaremos a Madrid en 27.12.2002
y planejamos conhecer dos o tres ciudad en
solo nueve dias...
Creo que podremos tener dos o tres noches
en Madrid, despues seguimos hasta Barcelona
usando la ferrovia (o algo mejor se puedes sugerir)
e por fin, podriamos encerrar com Sevila que dista
solo 03 horas de Madrid. Pero su indicacion podra
mostrar otros caminos e destinos que mejor
representem la diversidad arquitetonica e cultural
de Espana. O mismo recomiendar el uso de
automovil u no la ferrovia. No tenemos idea
do que sea mejor para mas proveito de la
viage.
Nosostros sabemos que el tiempo (WX) no será
el mejor mas nuestra experiencia en Italia e Portugal
alla mesma epoca en 2001 e 2000 dio pruebas de
que tenemos un poco de suerte !!
La salida de Espana sera en 06 de enero de 2002.
Gustaria se possible, encontrar los amigos con
quien normalmiente encontramos en contestes
para un cafe o una cerveza al noches... Seria
un gran prazer.
Qualquier informaciones seran benvindas e apreciadas.
Por favor, envien E-mail en "private"
para py2ny@arrl.net
Estoy en Echo-link o en ICQ algunas noches...
Gracias y muchas gracias para CQ-Contest...
PY2NY - Vitor Luis Aidar dos Santos
Caixa Postal 204
Jaboticabal, SP - Brasil
14870-970 ph.: (16)97854218
|