Issue 1.
> ARRL wrote: "The various log checkers handle the portable "/"
> designators different ways (as they each have developed their own
> processes).
This doesn't sound right... I thought computer log checking takes out most
of this human element (each having his own process).
Issue 2.
> Regardless, if it wasn't logged as DU1/K6ACZ is was treated as a
> busted call (NIL)
Not being able to equate DU1/<call> with <call>/DU1 seems to be a
straightforward problem to solve and one that should be.
Issue 3.
> Just for curiosity, I would like to have the reflectors opinion of just
how
> strict computer log checking should be.
I could be wrong, but I don't think the DU1/ vs /DU1 issue is matter of
strictness - just a weakness.
No one should come to the conclusion that computer log checking is
a bad thing, or that it should be eased off, or has to put on kid
gloves...it may only need to evolve some more (it's a fairly high
functioning beast as it is!)
Mike N2MG
|