Shelby Summerville is right on. In trying to check the CQ 160 Contest I
have found 42 CW and 23 SSB logs that are OK in the summary but have
improper info in the QSO line. This messes up my NIL program as it kicks
out valid QSOs as NIL if the program notes I have the log. I do correct the
log but I do not have time to go back thru all the logs and correct this
problem. Please, please look at the QSO line as well as the summary and if
it does not comply with the cabrillo specs and or is missing info please get
the software author to correct. I am asking the robot author to check the
first QSO line as well as the summary for compliance.
The other problem I see is a cabrillo log for some other contest is produced
(CQ WW for example). I also see home brew cabrillo that is bad.
The goal is to score everyone equally and let the true wibbers emerge. The
software authors and you the entrant must do your part!
I too appreciate the volunteers, and my complaint is not with the
> volunteers, but with the software authors, regardless of whom they are,
> not working closely with each contest sponsor, and having their software
> create "exactly" what is needed! The software authors, that aren't doing
> this, need to "do their part"? Purchasing contest software, IMHO, is
> "purchasing a service", and the word "purchase" allows me to complain?
CQ-Contest mailing list