David Pruett wrote:
> Speaking as one of the ARRL volunteer log checkers, our biggest problem
> is the people who can't seem to operate their logging software
> properly.
And this is your problem WHY? If they do not submit it correctly, just
like a paper log would have been hey dude you did irt wrong, your
entry is trashed. try to do it right next time?
> In fairness, a lot of people do, but a significant number
> can't seem to even set up their software so that their log is accurate
> (i.e., is a truthful representation of their activity in the contest).
Again if it is wrong, then why is it an entry at all?
>
> I check the ARRL 10M contest and you'd be surprised how many people send
> in logs showing the wrong sent exchange,
Well wrong exchange? then it's not a valid contact true?
> and with even their own
> callsign wrong.
Well wrong callsign? then maybe the FCC should give them a little note
too? If something like this is done why is it accepted at all?
> We spend much more time correcting such logs (where
> EVERY QSO is screwed up) than we do waiting for the logs to arrive.
Now wait a minute here, we have people complaining about logs being
fixed AFTER the contest,, and massaging of a log, yet the contest
sponsor (the league in this case) is doing the fixing and massaging for
them? Wow, this BLOWS! If they can not submit a truthful and correct
log, their entry should be tossed!
> I'd
> rather give people 30 days to submit logs properly than to rush them and
> have even more screwed up logs that we have to manually correct.
>
NEVER EVER correct them what is that? WOW!!
> Some people seem to think this is no big deal, but if you send in a log
> under the wrong callsign or with the wrong sent exchange (i.e., that
> doesn't represent what you actually used in the contest) then everyone
> you work gets dinged unfairly with NILs or BUSTs.
Like I said then their log should be tossed.
> As logcheckers, we
> try REALLY hard to not allow this to happen, but it's a mostly manual
> task which requires a fair amount of detective work and consumes a LOT
> of our time.
>
NUTS! i MAY BE IN THE MINORITY ON THIS ONE, BUT AGAIN, i FEEL THE
ENTRY IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE CONTEST ITSELF AND IF THE OPERATOR IS
TOO STUPID TO CORRECTLY SUBMIT HIS OR HER ENTRY, IT SHOULD BE TOSSED.
WHY ARE THESE IDIOTS GETTING ALLOWED TO SUBMIT FAULTY ENTRIES?
Sorry caplock. I wasnt yelling..
Joe WB9SBD
> Bob AD5VJ wrote:
>
>> Hi John
>>
>> Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I have read where this is an attempt
>> to keep unscrupulous contesters from spending a lot of time manipulating
>> their logs (which is understandable).
>>
>> The other argument I have heard is that the logs ever so slowly dribble in
>> leaving the contest log coordinators waiting an unusually unnecessary time
>> until the last log comes in.
>>
>> I agree that a month seems like an awfully long time under today's standards
>> and technology. Originally, I am sure you remember, it was 30 days because
>> you had to use manual dupe sheets - dupe out the log(s) and recheck the dupe
>> sheets. You had a second and third contester in your group double and triple
>> check all of that to insure the logs submitted were accurate before
>> submission.
>>
>> Today the software we use does all that within minutes or even seconds (in
>> my case HIHI). Even if we use paper logs we can always do some data entry
>> into an application that will do the hard part then print it out for
>> submission.
>>
>> 73,
>> Bob AD5VJ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John Geiger [mailto:aa5jg@yahoo.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 8:51 AM
>>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com; 'James Duffey'; Bob AD5VJ
>>> Cc: 'James Duffey'; 'Ward Silver'
>>> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Rookie Contest
>>>
>>> Or how about 30 days which is standard fare for every other contest.
>>> Why reinvent the wheel-such a time limit has worked fine since the
>>> start of contesting.
>>>
>>> 73s John AA5JG
>>>
>>> --- On Sat, 2/13/10, Bob AD5VJ <rtnmi@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Bob AD5VJ <rtnmi@sbcglobal.net>
>>>> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Rookie Contest
>>>> To: "'John Geiger'" <aa5jg@yahoo.com>, cq-contest@contesting.com,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "'James Duffey'" <jamesduffey@comcast.net>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cc: "'James Duffey'" <jamesduffey@comcast.net>, "'Ward Silver'"
>>>>
>>>>
>>> <hwardsil@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Date: Saturday, February 13, 2010, 8:48 AM
>>>> I understand the reason for a time
>>>> limit and agree there should be a time
>>>> limit on submitting logs for any contest. However, 10 mins
>>>> after the contest
>>>> is just a little too short in my opinion. Too many
>>>> possibilities of
>>>> extenuating circumstances keeping one from meeting the time
>>>> limit even if
>>>> his intent was to do so.
>>>>
>>>> I know we want to target those who are lackadaisical in
>>>> their submissions
>>>> and agree we need to do something about them.
>>>>
>>>> I usually submit right after the contest, however, I have
>>>> had circumstances
>>>> here that would prohibit doing so.
>>>>
>>>> I agree let's think in terms of a time limit because there
>>>> is nothing worse
>>>> for a sorter to have to languish for days on end waiting
>>>> for final logs to
>>>> come in, but let's think in terms of one that would work
>>>> even if there was
>>>> trouble with submitting it.
>>>>
>>>> I have sometimes had internet problems for longer than 10
>>>> mins.
>>>>
>>>> Let's consider 24 hours or 48 hours or something along that
>>>> line, enforce it
>>>> and stick to it.
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> Bob AD5VJ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> [mailto:cq-contest-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> bounces@contesting.com]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> On Behalf Of John Geiger
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 10:20 PM
>>>>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> James Duffey
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Cc: James Duffey; Ward Silver
>>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rookie Contest
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I still don't see the point. How is
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> having to have your log
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> submitted within 10 minutes after the contest ends any
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> more appropriate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> for rookie contesters than any other contester?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> How is it really
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> appropriate at all? After all, I do have a life
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> outside of ham radio
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and sometimes things get crazy enough around here that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I can't just
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> drop everything and submit a log within the magical 10
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> minute window.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 73s John AA5JG
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Fri, 2/12/10, James Duffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> From: James Duffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>
>>>>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Rookie Contest
>>>>>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>>>>>> Cc: "James Duffey" <jamesduffey@comcast.net>,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> "Ward Silver"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> <hwardsil@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Friday, February 12, 2010, 3:06 PM
>>>>>> Ward - Bravo to you and the others
>>>>>> for moving the contesting world into the 21st
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> century. It is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> long overdue and I hope that it grows from a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> single contest
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> into many. It may not be appropriate for all
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> contests an
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> contesters, but it seems right for the new rookie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> contest. -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Duffey
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> KK6MC
>>>>>> James Duffey
>>>>>> Cedar Crest NM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2685 - Release Date: 02/13/10
> 02:43:00
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|