On 6/14/00 10:04 PM, David Thompson at thompson@mindspring.com wrote:
>The probem log checkers run into is our software can ferret out uniques but
>proving these contacts to be bad is hard. If a station has 500+ (out of
>1100 Q's) uniques and they are all in one or two countries...what is the log
>checker to think?
That certainly warrants further investigation. I would take a dozen or so
contacts and try to confirm them via e-mail. Even if you get only 2 or 3
answers, it should easily determine the quality of those unique contacts.
>Thus Don set the 7% rule as a generous test (rather than
>5% as several suggested). I found one stateside station to have probably
>listed out the call book to fill out his log. He trapped himself when he
>listed novices and techs (several confirmed by mail) that have no access to
>160.
And that's how the process should work. Naturally, there's a chance that
a few uniques may simply be undetected busted calls. But if there's a
pattern of impossible contacts, then the uniques can be judged as
cheating.
And that's my point in this entire deal: human judgement. I think it's OK
for logs with 5% or more uniques to be scrutinized for possible QSO
fabrication. Send the e-mails, see what kind of response you get. But I
don't think it is right for a log to be disqualified solely on the basis
of lots of uniques. There has to be some other indicator to force that
judgement.
Then again, I'm not a log checker or contest adjudicator. Who am I to say
how someone should or should not adjudicate logs? I can only say what I
think would be fair. The decision is certainly yours.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
Quote: "Boot, you transistorized tormentor! Boot!"
-- Archibald Asparagus, VeggieTales
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/seccfaq.html
Submissions: secc@contesting.com
Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com
|