CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW CW 2007 Result W2/NP3D - I just did not getit.

To: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW CW 2007 Result W2/NP3D - I just did not getit.
From: Jerry Chouinard <k5yaa@okdxa.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 01:27:14 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Thanks Steve and Mark for your comments - I thought I was missing something 
on the "Cabrillo System".  I had viewed the format as an effort to bring 
some sanity to the construction of tools to automate log checking and 
scoring.  Personally I have written many data handling / correction tools 
and have waded through correcting many collections of information that 
owners considered masterpieces.  I appreciate predictable formats like 
Cabrillo.  I appreciate the many hours of effort put into the log 
adjudication process.  Without computer logging and a format like Cabrillo 
I'd enter only a handful of contests and would send a log in for even fewer.

Jerry - K5YAA

At 08:18 PM 9/2/2007 -0600, Steve London wrote:
>Okay, Paul, we have been listening to your rant for years now. How about 
>posting
>your UBN report to the world, so we can judge for ourselves ?  Anyone can now
>download your log at http://cqww.com/cwlogs/n4xm/, so you don't need to 
>post that.
>
>And, as usual, you are confusing the Cabrillo format of the log submission 
>with
>the log adjudication process.
>
>73,
>Steve, N2IC
>
>N4XM Paul D. Schrader wrote:
> > 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
> >
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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