CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CHECKLOGS -- another view CQWW-wise

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CHECKLOGS -- another view CQWW-wise
From: Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc@citlink.net>
Reply-to: k0rc@citlink.net
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:01:27 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
One of the reasons many contesters don't submit logs (that I know about 
first hand) is they are logging with a non-contest software package that 
does not generate a Cabrillo formatted file. The majority of them can 
create ADIF files though. But there's always a few who send PDFs, JPGs, 
Excel, and other odd-ball formatted files!

IMO, the biggest bang-for-the-buck would be to have the robots recognize 
and accept both Cabrillo and ADIF, then sort them out at the receiving 
end. Most hams were helpful when solicited for a log to help increase 
the accuracy of the log processing.

Small logs can be important, especially if a rare multiplier only makes 
a few contacts. Otherwise those contacts might be considered busted 
calls, KH7Y vs KS7Y. If a log is sent in, it will confirm the activity 
of that call sign. A few operators might be credited with a rare zone or 
country.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11/22/2011 12:30 PM, Jack Haverty. wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Randy Thompson K5ZD<k5zd@charter.net>wrote:
>
>> Every log received helps
>> make the log checking better by enabling more cross checking.
>>
> IMHO, the way to get more logs submitted is to make it more attractive for
> people to submit their log.  From what I've read, I get the impression that
> most - way more than half - of people who participate in a contest often
> don't send in any log at all.  Why not?
>
> One reason might be that they see no reason to submit a log, since they
> have no chance of winning or even reporting a non-embarassing score.  We've
> all seen (and made) the excuses in the Soapboxes when we report a
> less-than-stellar performance.  Visiting relatives, had to work late, took
> the kids to soccer practice, can't stay awake that long any more,
> neighbors' plasma TVs, etc.   The longer the regular contest is, the harder
> it is for people to "make a full effort".
>
> So, perhaps contest sponsors can entice more logs by some simple steps.
> For example, there's many people, even "serious contesters", who can
> sometimes only work, or only want to play, for a few hours this weekend.
> What if contests' score reports always included one or more time-limited
> categories, e.g., maybe "Two Hour" and "Eight Hour" rankings?
>
> Another example - Teams.   Maybe Teams could compete based on the number of
> Operator-Hours they involve, with similar divisions by total time.  A
> "Hundred-Hour" Team might be 4 ops working 25 hours, or 25 ops working 4
> hours.  Or a Ten-Hour Team - where 4 ops in a local club might spend a few
> hours each at their best station, competing against others like them, but
> not the Multi powerhouses..
>
> There's other examples, e.g., the HOA-Challenged ops who use stealth
> antennas.  I suspect there are *lots* of potential contesters in that
> situation, but there's nowhere for them to compete even with each other.
> If they participate, they probably don't submit logs.  But most don't
> participate.
>
> I think the best way to get more logs submitted is to look hard at why
> people don't submit logs, and try to fix it....
>
> 73,
> /Jack de K3FIV
> Having Fun With 100 W and a Wire
> Point Arena, CA
> _______________________________________________
> 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>