I'm sorry I ruffled your feathers. I assure you that was not my
I have been waiting for the LCR to be posted and in after thought, I
should have waited until it was posted before asking my question on
My communication with Dan, N1ND, at ARRL Contest Branch, concerning
logging of portable calls made me falsely assume I lost my 11 Q's and
3 mults due to my potable designation not being logged correctly at
other end. Dan even related his personal experience on the matter to
In my meager defense I would like to say that I, at no time, accused
you, or anyone else, of not checking the logs correctly or
accurately. I merely presented a question to the group of how
incorrect logging of portable calls should be handled. If it seemed I
insulted you or undermined the job you were doing I deeply regret it
and apologize ask your forgiveness.
As you so elegantly stated to me in your private email, and I quote:
"Perhaps next time you'll get the facts before you go to the reflector
putting forth ideas which have no basis in fact." I will get my facts
straight next time before I post a question.
"David A. Pruett" wrote:
> Since Mr. Zack has seen fit to impugn the ARRL 10M log checking process, I
> feel compelled to respond.
> In response to his, I forwarded him his LCR from the 2002 ARRL 10M
> Contest. I also provided additional details to augment the information in
> the report.
> While I would like nothing better than to post the details of that e-mail
> here on the reflector, I will respect Mr. Zack's privacy and refrain from
> doing so. However, I will say that of the eleven QSOs which the DU1/K6ACZ
> entry lost in logchecking, NOT ONE QSO WAS DUE TO THE PROBLEM HE ALLEGES
> (DU/K6ACZ not being recognized as DU1/K6ACZ).
> I'm trying to be civil so that the list moderator can pass this message in
> good conscience. However, it really irritates me when people post messages
> to the list containing accusations when they don't know what they're
> talking about.
> I don't think there is a log checking team out there that will claim their
> process to be perfect. Perfection IS the goal - how close you can get is a
> matter of judgement.
> One more thing - those of you griping about log checking need to get a
> grip. Make no mistake - getting the QSO right is the expectation in ANY
> contest. The contesters who are respected (fill in the blank here) accept
> this and use this as motivation try to do better.
> At 12:57 PM 7/3/03 -0700, Alan C. Zack wrote:
>Just for curiosity, I would like to have the reflectors opinion of
>just how strict computer log checking should be. In the ARRL 10 meter
>contest in December 2002 I operated from the Philippines. My
>temporary permit listed my call as DU1/K6ACZ so that is what I used
>during the contest. However, with my weak signal, many stations,
>including a lot of EU stations, had a hard time copying my call with
>its portable designation from my weak DXpedition station. Maybe they
>would get my call OK but not the portable DU1. So in many logs I was
>logged as K6ACZ/DU or /DU1 instead of the DU1/K6ACZ I submitted my log
>under. This may also be because of the personal preference of the
>person on the other end on how he wants to enter my call in his log or
>just the way he heard it. Regardless, if it wasn't logged as
>DU1/K6ACZ should it treated as a busted call (NIL) and removed from my score?
> >Here is a snip of the reply I got from the ARRL Contest group when I
> >presented the question:
> >ARRL wrote: "The various log checkers handle the portable "/"
> >designators different ways (as they each have developed their own
> >processes). - the software didn't see the match as correct so the call
> >got a NIL. With millions of contacts being processed, it simply isn't
> >possible to hand check each and every contact."
Amateur Radio Station K6ACZ
Anaheim, Southern California, USA
Quality Engineer, The Boeing Company, Retired
Aviation Chief Warrant Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Retired
U.S. Coast Guard, Always Ready, Always There
Every hour, Every day, Around the Clock and Around the World