CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Blogs, changing exchanges and sponsors

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Blogs, changing exchanges and sponsors
From: Tree <tree@kkn.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:00:05 -0800
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Ev - aka Radiosporting fan writes:

> Wouldn't it be nice if contest sponsors blogged?  They could easily post all 
> of 
> the rules interpretations that they communicated with each private inquiry -- 
> to the benefit of the entire contesting community.
> 
> To the blogging-newbie -- the simplest blogs are one-way posts.  There is no 
> requirement to allow reader commentary on each item.  It is also possible to 
> moderate comments -- if they are allowed at all.

To which I could say something like - 

Wouldn't it be nice if contest operators could use the search function on the
cq-contest web interface?

If they entered "unstable" into the field, they would see an entry in position 
#5 that has the title: "[CQ-Contest] Changing sent information in the middle 
of the contest"

http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-08/msg00020.html

Another example of "Ajudicating in the Daylight" can be found here:

http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00145.html

CQ-CONTEST is pretty close to a blog.  I try to be open about the process here
and comment when things come up.

But it does get to be harder when the same things keep being rehashed by people
who didn't remember the old thread (or check to see if it ever occurred).

While what W1WEF said is true:

> Sorry. We have physical evidence that is not true. Tree and I have  
> discussed at least one occurrence of this from Phone SS a few years  
> back where 20 ops got 'dinged' when the station they contacted  
> corrected their exchange.  Either 20 is below the threshold, or the  
> software isn't as capable as one would like.

This was a case where the percentage of bad exchanges wasn't high enough
to trip the "unstable" classification.  All information is subject to the
average error rate of the contest - typically 5-7 percent, so it takes 
something higher than that to be positive something fishy happened.

And even so - some exchanges are worse.  About 20 percent of the time 
someone says "SACRAMENTO VALLEY" on phone, someone will log SCV  (or
visa versa).  I have to go remove those from the unstable list manually.

My advice to anyone near Sacramento is to say "sugar victor".  It's not only
quicker, it will help improve the accuracy of the information exchanged.

So - the best answer for N7MAL is to keep sending the exchange he started
with and submit the log in the right category.  These do show up in a 
report that I run - and I always see about 20 of them.  As long as the 
claimed caetegory is "less" than what you had in your exchange.  

If you sent "B" all weekend and submitted your log in the QRP category,
we will likely send you an e-mail and ask for clarification.

73 Tree N6TR
tree@kkn.net
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>