May I make a small suggestion?
GIVEN: That there are contests out there that no longer require an RS(T)
report as part of their exchange (Stu Perry and the Pa QSO Party just to
name two);
GIVEN: That many (most?) Cabrillo Contest Robots and similar software are
set up to look for as RS(T) field in the log;
and
GIVEN: Some contesters are unsurprisingly reluctant to put a "phony" 59(9)
RS(T) exchange in the log since it wasn't sent or received...
Why not put an RST of "00(0)" in the submitted log instead?
After all, that is the purpose in our numbering system of the Zero -- to be
a place holder. So it's a logical extension.
Now, I can see a few pseudo-lawyers saying "but wait! '00(0)' wasn't sent
either!" Correct, BUT, if this suggestion is adopted, we would be DEFINING
a '00(0)' RS(T) shown in a computer log SPECIFICALLY as a dummy variable to
be used by software applications in situations where the software expects a
signal report but one wasn't exchanged.
Thoughts?
73, ron w3wn
when life hands some a lemon, some make lemonade...
I look for Tequilla and salt...
-----Original Message-----
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 19:34:01 EST
From: Georgek5kg@aol.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] A Plea to Cabrillo Contet Robot Writers
To: w2ev@yahoo.com
Cc: CQ-Contest@CONTESTING.COM
In a message dated 1/7/2007 5:26:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
w2ev@yahoo.com writes:
You seem to be taking this much too personally, Tree. The issue has
nothing
to do with the *excellent* work that BARC does (and continues to do). It
simply happens that BARC's Stu Perry event was the one that was referenced
as
an example of the problem with (1) parsing on "white space" rather than
field-position and (2) requiring 599 reports when RST is not exchanged.
I've run
across similar issues with other (non BARC) events, too (as I said before).
Let's instead, focus on the issue without regard as to what the examples
may be. The issue is that of *requiring* electronic submitters to send a
log
that includes artificial or synthesized information.
Why is that a bad idea? Because one never knows what future decisions are
made based on historic data. There are those that say, "No data is better
than bad data". In this case, packing a log wit 599's is outright "make
believe" data.
Even so, it is BARC's (EXCELLENT) event. BARC will do what they need to in
order to make the job easier for themselves (and who can blame them?) I am
simply offering a point of view that was not previously considered and
stand
by my plea that robot writers review their code to assure that data is
parsed
by column so as to avoid pitfalls as discussed in this thread.
In the mean time...thank you BARC for a v-e-r-y fun contest!
Ev, W2EV
I just have to finally weigh in on this. Ev, it seems to me that you are
making an issue out of a non-issue, and should give it a rest.
We all know that the RST system, and especially exchanging 59 or 599 in a
contest is essentially meaningless. Who cares about signal report data in
contest files, anyway? Certainly not me, and it ain't worth the bandwidth
or
brain cells to harp on it.
FWIW, and nothing personal.
73, Geo...k5kg
George Wagner, K5KG
941-312-9420
941-400-1960 cell
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|