"...but all QSO lines contain DL9LR as his call."
I see two issues here.
First, I thought each QSO: line was supposed to represent the actual contest
exchange that took place at the time, band, and mode of that line in the
Cabrillo file. Why would a Cabrillo header take precedent over the actual
logged contacts in the submitted file?
Two, there is a difference between the contest robot and the adjudication
software. Don't wrap them up into one package. What the robot accepts and
rejects is irrelevant to how the logs are processed later.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurent Ferracci" <laurent@ferracci.org>
To: "Tree" <tree@kkn.net>
Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking errors
Tree a écrit :
> Feedback from all of you to the log checkers is very valuable
OK, so i'll add a little more feedback.
I've checked my "DL9LR/DK1F" case.
He used DK1F in the contest, had DK1F in the CALLSIGN header but all QSO
lines contain DL9LR as his call.
As i mentionned before, i had no NIL because we had the same call in my
QSO line and his header. His call into his QSO lines is not taken into
account by the robot.
But what's surprising is that DL9LR got a NIL for the QSO with me (and
probably had 100% NIL ?). So in this case, when the robot checked his
log, he used his callsign taken from his QSO lines, not his header.
Go figure...
Laurent, F1JKJ
_______________________________________________
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
|