Andrei,
Contrary to what others have told you, their Cabrillo logging system system
is defective.
They have not responded to me after I pointed out their errors.
See below:
Bob (K3EST) and others,
I have reviewed the UBN report for N4XM and have found 6 significant errors.
The log checking process is not correct and its quality is further reduced by
the use of the defective Cabrillo system.
If I accept what your UBN says for certain contacts:
1) My 160M zone multipliers have been incorrectly reduced by one. The
deleted contact zone is covered by another contact. 10 zones (not 9)
as submitted is the correct number.
2) My 80M zone multipliers have been incorrectly reduced by one. The
deleted contact zone is covered by another contact. 20 zones (not 19)
as submitted is the correct number.
3) My 40M zone multipliers have been incorrectly reduced by one. The
deleted contact zone is covered by another contact. 27 zones (not 26)
as submitted is the correct number.
4) My 20M zone multipliers have been incorrectly reduced by one. The
deleted contact zone is covered by another contact. 31 zones (not 30)
as submitted is the correct number.
5) For an uncheckable reason the QSO points for 20M is 2 points too low.
Should be 660 points (not 658). I suspect that your error may be tied to
the 25 Nov 1837Z contact with KP4EJ. My logging program and latest
database info showed this contact as zero contact points originally.
But this was incorrect as KP4EJ definitely sent zone 8 and I corrected
the error. My log shows zone 8 not by mistake but on as an on purpose
correct correction. Note that my original number was 720 points.
6) For an uncheckable reason the QSO points for 15M is 5 points too low.
Should be 587 (not 582). Note that my original number was 619 points.
My summary should then be:
band points zones ctys
-----------------------------------------------------
160 43 10 13
80 247 20 48
40 688 27 88
20 660 31 93
15 587 26 87
10 99 12 22
-----------------------------------------------------
Total 2324 126 351
Final score: 2324 x (126+351)=1,108,548
Note that this is 12,607 points greater than your 1,095,941 shown in your
UBN report and includes your UBN contact penalties.
(My original submitted claimed score was 1,203,248.)
Let me remind you that I sent a complete log via postal mail as well as the
e-mail Cabrillo file.
Please correct my score before publishing.
COMMENTS
Many millions of dollars and hours are spent for amateur radio contesting. I
appreciate the problems with your log checking costs but that is not
acceptable because you have accepted a defective system (Cabrillo) and
do not charge for log checking (as is done for DXCC).
Let me suggest that you charge a reasonable amount for log checking and that
those who contribute be in a separate "Logs Checked" category. All others
belong in an "Unchecked Category" which would save you a large amount of
time and money. And in all cases the Cabrillo log checking system is not an
acceptable method.
CQ is to be congratulated for including the scores in your magazine. You
have some excellent contests and I hope you grab the chance to elevate
their status by requiring major improvements in reporting and log checking
as I am suggesting AT NO COST TO YOU.
I have been contesting for many years and just recently put together enough
info to realize how defective the Cabrillo system really is. I am trying to
improve the system. See other comments below.
73
Paul N4XM
Jim K8JE (ARRL Great Lakes Director),
Good to talk to you at Dayton.
Attached are my Cabrillo related electronic files you requested.
The situation may be worse than I have indicated. A forum I attended said
that logs were changed and modified at times by the checkers; and that
call signs were sometimes changed also. Unbelievable!
I believe the Hudson Division director, Frank Fallon, was present when
this was stated, but I'm not sure. So I am sending a copy of this
message to Frank. Check with him.
It looks to me that the entire process should have a high level A to Z review.
And the members should be allowed to comment at some point.
There should be an existing document, approved by several high level
administrative officers, that states the details of the present process. I
bet
one doesn't exist.
Jim, your interest is appreciated.
Please keep me informed.
73
Paul N4XM PE LM
THE
CABRILLO
LOGGING
SYSTEM
>From e-mails I have sent to others:
Gentlemen,
>From an informed source, and other information,
this is the way Cabrillo really is:
________________________________________________
>I understand there is no need (indeed, no provision)
>to indicate a score for individual QSOs, or to flag
>any as dupes or multipliers.
>
>I understand the Claimed-Score field is for guidance
>only, and that logs are re-scored independently and
>in a consistent manner by the contest organisers.
________________________________________________
Please note that the word used is "consistent", not "correct".
Others apparently equate the two; I don't.
And questions exist related to how uniques are handled.
And are RS/RST submissions checked?
It would seem to me that the log submitter should be
responsible for submitting a complete, accurate, scored log.
But that is not the system for Cabrillo.
And from what great source does the checking sponsor have
THE correct info to use with the Cabrillo system?
The Cabrillo system never even knows when the submitter
may have different, and perhaps more correct, info (multiplier,
or contact points, as examples).
Manual and non-Cabrillo electronic loggers are allowed, but
required to submit to an entirely different standard.
This is BS.
It seems to me that only one party should be held
responsible for an accurate, complete, duped and scored log,
and that the submitter should be the party responsible.
I also believe ALL should be required to submit complete,
and accurate, info and scores.
The rules should clearly state what is to be submitted and
ALL should be required to submit it ALL ACCURATELY, or a
penalty should be imposed. ALL required submission should
be checked. (I understand checking limitations.)
With the Cabrillo system not just my effort but that of many
others is the issue here. For example, the guys that keep the
country lists up to date are wasting their time.. Updating the
logging programs with this info is a waste of time. Marking
dups is a waste of time. The effort to submit an accurate score
is apparently a waste of time.
I'm very very unhappy that we were never told about this up
front, were never given an opportunity to comment on it
before it was adopted, etc.; and have wasted thousands
of hours doing stuff because we didn't know the screwed
up system. The people doing the updates for the logging
program country lists that have no value with Cabrillo
should really be pissed.
The contest sponsors and logging programs using Cabrillo
should stop using it. The contest sponsors owe the
contest community a giant written apology.
I know some don't agree, but after many decades of
contesting I feel I have earned the right to inform others,
express my opinion, and ask for change. And an apology.
73
Paul N4XM (ex W4BCV)
The present Cabrillo system and the deletion of contest results from the
pages of QST shows that the board of directors has not been interested
in providing a high integrity contest system. DXCC, although not perfect,
is an example of a high integrity system. Why aren't the contesters
entitled to a similar high integrity system?
I have spent most of my ham career contesting, but the administrative
tricks being used by ARRL and others, really turns me off. We are
dumbing it down, killing the integrity, and providing poor presentation
of the results. It shouldn't be this way. Look at the DXCC system as
an example of how to improve.
73
Paul N4XM PE LM
Cabrillo does not convey or require all information. The contest sponsors
are only using what is submitted by the Cabrillo file, determining things
(right or wrong), and scoring the logs. Their "consistent" method does
not mean a "correct" method.
Most of the contest logging programs do a decent job BUT their database
information must be correct. Many contests I participate in when I use
computer logging require significant effort by me to correct their database.
When these programs and paper submissions are used for full
submission, full information is provided.
But all the information developed by the contest logging programs (right or
wrong) is not conveyed in the Cabrillo system; individual QSO score is not
provided, dups and multipliers are not flagged. And because of this
Cabrillo submitted logs are evaluated and scored by the contest organizers
using THEIR system and THEIR database information.
Here is what to do.
1) Publish in CQ and QST how Cabrillo really works. ALL ARE ENTITLED
TO KNOW. (I spent a lot of effort determining how it works. Most don't
know. We should have been told.)
2) Change the rules to require the same submission information for all
acceptable submission methods. Penalize the same for errors.
3) Make all present Cabrillo system submissions "ASSISTED" class since
individual QSO scores are not provided, dups and multipliers are not
flagged, and logs are scored by the contest organizers.
4) With time develop an improved computerized system, eliminating the
present flaws/ideas as I have discussed. Improve the integrity of the
system. Provide a conduit for submitter input as to what he/she thinks
is correct, which the present Cabrillo system does not provide.
Eliminate "by sponsor" scoring.
The above items are really quite simple. Why don't we do them?
73
Paul N4XM PE LM
There are many items other than just limited Cabrillo information.
1) The fact that we were not advised as to how the Cabrillo system works.
This has caused a lot of non used work by unknowing submitters.
There is no excuse for not having advised us as to how it works.
2) The fact that other submission methods are allowed but require
additional information/effort. Not a level playing field.
3) The sponsors "official database" is secret and not available and the
accuracy of it therefore is questionable. And why is it not made available?
4) The score is requested in the Cabrillo system but is useless
information since the log is rescored by the sponsor when the Cabrillo
system is used.
5) With the Cabrillo system some of the information to develop the final
score is actually supplied by the sponsor and not by the submitter. Wrong.
Wrong. Wrong.
6) AT THE BEST IT IS AN ASSISTED CATEGORY.
73
Paul N4XM
If you are not that active in contesting you may not know that the
country files which are used to determine multipliers must often be updated
within the logging programs. These files are really the info to determine
multipliers and contact scores. This is a continuing time consuming job
and I find that even using the latest information they are many times not
correct, requiring a major effort on my part to determine the real situation
and correct the files.
But have no fear. I have learned that since the Cabrillo system doesn't pass
this information to the sponsor it doesn't need to be correct. So why waste
your time really knowing what is going on and providing an accurate total
score? (This is part of the dumbing down.) Of course the information that
the Cabrillo system actually uses is that which is supplied by the sponsor's
wizards. This is used by the sponsors "assisting" you in log scoring
(actually DOING the log scoring). It may not be correct either. And since
it is secret, who knows????????????
And isn't this an "ASSISTED" category?
This is one of my major complaints. You are not passing what you know
about the multipliers/contact scores to the sponsor because there is no
method to do so within the Cabrillo system. Any score you develop is
useless to the sponsor. There is no penalty for dups in the Cabrillo file
and there is no penalty for an incorrect multiplier, etc. (since you are not
supplying multipliers/contact scores within the Cabrillo system, and dups
are not marked). There is no penalty for an inaccurate total score
submission since the sponsor essentially ignores your total score. Before
Cabrillo and with all other present submission methods you supply this
information to your best ability and penalties are issued if incorrect.
Again note the "dumbing down".
NOTE THIS: With the Cabrillo system you as a contestant have no way of
determining what the actual final score will be even if you have a zero
defect copy situation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! True even if you have wasted
your time and
made a perfect country file (which the Cabrillo system never even knows
about).
I wish to quote a statement presently on the ARRL DXCC blog:
"The ARRL DXCC Branch has spent many thousands of man-hours over the
years checking cards and making every effort to maintain the integrity of the
DXCC program. Most DXers would have it no other way. When we were
considering rule changes back in the late nineties, many DXers went out of
their way to comment to the effect that we should never compromise on
integrity."
The contest oriented hams are apparently second class citizens.
I'm trying to change that.
I do think it is unethical to have the different submission information
requirements that exist for different submission methods.
But when the Cabrillo system is not classed as "Assisted"
category it is definitely unethical.
I also think the integrity is definitely affected with the present
Cabrillo System.
The secrecy aspects also leave a very bad image.
The fact that we have not been told how the Cabrillo system works, is
definitely unethical.
It is a poorly done, poorly implemented system.
It is a major effort to seriously enter a big contest. I have been there:
Top Ten USA, 4 consecutive years, 96 hour ARRL Phone DX Contests,
from Kentucky (as W4BCV). From a small subdivision lot.
We deserve better.
I encourage others to complain to ARRL and CQ also.
73
Paul N4XM PE LM
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|