---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:28:01 -0400 (EST)
From: Bill OKain <k4lta@user.icx.net>
To: Vic_Goncharsky <Vic_Goncharsky@p180.f10.n462.z2.fido.ccrd1.lviv.ua>
Cc: "trlog@contesting.com"
<trlog%contesting.com@f10.n462.z2.fido.ccrd1.lviv.ua>
Subject: Re: [TRLog] Hand vs Computer - Some analisys
Vic, thanks for your most interesting message. I would like to cast my
vote in favor of computer logging for the following reasons:
1. I don't think you mentioned cross-check logs or dup sheets. This is
one place the computer can save time and be more accurate.
2. I have done computer logging for about 10 years, but only started
using a c.w. port about a year ago. This really makes the computer
easier, improves sending, etc.
3. Some of our handwriting is not easy to read when done in the heat of
battle. Have you ever edited Field Day logs with about a dozen different
handwritten logs?
In summary, I guess it is whatever a person enjoys, as we are supposed to
be having fun. I guess it won't be too many years until we have a contest
where everyone handwrites their log, much like we have the contest with
homebrew equipment now. I would hate to be on the contest committee
responsible for checking the logs.
73 de Bill k4lta
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Vic_Goncharsky wrote:
>
>
> Dear fellow contesters!
> After reading most of the recent discussion regarding the paper vs computer
> logging I did not find any messagees containing serious attempts to
> analyze this dilemma that we are facing.
>
> I have been studying this problem since getting my first XT in 1990
> and want to share the conclusions with the skilllful contesting
> audience.
>
> The best epigraph I was able to find for this discussion are the words
> from Kenny Rogers' "The Gambler" song:
>
> "If you gonna play, boy, you have to do it RIGHT".
> *************************************************
>
> Therefore, arguments like: "I can log with just two fingers", or: "My scores
> went down with computer logging but I am happy, etc" aren't even worth
> considering. One can type with single finger, nose, pencil, "SOMETHING ELSE"
> but these methods are, a priori, WRONG and lead to nowhere.
>
> Let's start with CW contests where analysys is quite simple. As a starting
> point I'll introduce some basics.
>
> Firstly - For decades there have been 2 (T W O) different categories in
> high-speed CW competitions(I was both participant and referee for the last
> 25 years):
> 1.Hand copy
> 2.Typewriter copy
>
> Average top scores were 20 - 25% in favor of the Typewriter copy.
> None of the participants shared both methods equally successful.
> TYPE-COPYISTS' scores in hand copying were far behind their counterparts
> from group 1. HAND-COPYISTS could barely type either.
>
> This shows, quite clearly, the following:
>
> a. Ideally, the keyboard copying speed could increase about 20 percent
> compared to the hand logging.
> b. One faces the problem of necessity to re-train oneself to the completly
> different skill if decision to switch to the computer logging has been
> made.
> b. The re-training process will be time-consuming and age-dependent if equal
> or better results have to be acheived.
> c. Together with copying skills one has to change the OPERATING skills as
> well,
> since there is no left or right (ie free from copying and paddling) hand
> avaliable to tune the RIT, switch bands,memories, RF/AF gain, etc anymore.
> d. Both hands are to be "chained" to the QWERTY keyboard in a proper way,
> since
> only automatic "blind typing" will give one a chance to have the operating
> convenience and speed compared to the hand-logging scheme.
>
> TEST No 1.
> Install the latest version of "SM" software. Try to copy the highest possible
> speed by hand, say, letters - 25 to 30 wpm. If you can do this error-free
> you're in good shape. Now try to copy the same speed on keyboard. If, again,
> you're doing this error-free your chances to be in Top-Ten are quite high,
> if NOT you'll know what I feel every time I am failing to pass this test...hi
>
> TEST No 2.
> Measure and compare the time-delay between your response to one's call
> with manual and computer logging. Ideally it must not exceed :
>
> - for KEYBOARD: time to type the last letter of his call and ENTER (for TR)
> or GreyPlus for CT;
>
> - for MANUAL LOGGING : * no delay *
> Why? Because with manual logging you have to remember the call and start to
> respond immediately after hearing the last letter and log the
> QSO while getting his response. Unfortunately this method DOES NOT work
> with computer logging (!!!!!!!) because the response delay in the BEST
> case equals the duration of the calling-station's call.
> Painful experience......
>
> The problem described in TEST No 2 gives the answer to the question "Why one
> is
> calling CQ on default 35 wpm but responds to those calling on 20 wpm after
> some
> delay?" - because he/she does not posess the NECESSARY typewriter copying
> and computer logging skills.
>
> Secondly - comuter logging contains another problem /skill to be learned/
> --- > CONTROL CHARACTERS.
>
> The DupeSheet writing/checking skill, which is somewhat functionally similar,
> is absolutely useless in this case. The only solution to learn how to use
> these
> CTRL-_'s and ALT-_'s AUTOMATICALLY (!!!!!) would have been the good SIMULATOR
> software. At this time I am not aware of any SIMULATOR both for CT and TR that
> really simulates and TEACHES how to use all possibilities of these nice
> commercial products including, especially, both S&P and CQ modes, multiplier
> checks, editing fields and so on.
>
> Contest operation is a Battle-field and NOT a Training-ground. One must fight
> and be well prepared to do this long before touching the first F1.
>
> Thirdly - another factor that influences the hand vs computer logging speed
> ratio is the logging software itself. In other words, the question
> is how close computer logging can approach the hand logging QSO
> rate for someone who's able to handle any pile-up both on SSB and CW
> and and was taught to do this by hand decade or so ago.
>
> I had no chance to try NA, so only CT and TR will be analized.
>
> Potentially, TR is faster and more convenient because of the less keystrokes
> per QSO, extensive use of the ENTER key and provisions to pick up tail-enders.
> Unfortunately all these advantages are "effectively killed" by the nightmare
> of the Alt-E command. This is, for me at least, the weakest part of the
> software that seriously degrades it's overall performance.
>
> CT, on the other hand, does the editing in an elegant way, resulting in much
> less possibility to miss the zone or country multiplier. But again this advan-
> tage is "blocked" by things like: numeric keypad keys use, necessity to
> push more different keys to log the QSO and no tail-end options.
>
> SSB contests.
> --------------
> These require the AUTOMATIC keyboard copy of the different type of
> information i.e. letters and figures in English spelled by voice.
> Where and how can one learn such a skill? If he/she lives in the English
> speaking country, secretary workshop would be a good approximation.
> If one's living somewhere else he's in trouble. The worst cases are
> countries using, other then QWERTY, keyboard standarts. The author of this
> opus represents such a country on the air for the last 30 years.
> I think a good training tool would have been a voice version of the
> "Super Morse" software on a CD-ROM adopted, especially, for heavy
> DX-pedition and contest situations. If such commercial product exists
> I'll purchase it immediately.
> Summary.
> --------
> 1.It is still not clear if existing computer contest logging is superior
> to hand-logging based on QSO per hour criterium.
> 2.The existing contest logging software packages have to be upgraded to
> allow using the best hand-logging tricks like: multiple tail-ending or
> partial calls scooping( technique to write down parts of calls heard in
> pile-up to work them aftrwards in a raw) etc.
> 3.Editing the callsign field of any logged qso must lead to immediate
> corresponding change of all qso parameters i.e. multiplier(s) and points
> (CT style) and be as easy as possible.
> 4.In order to switch from hand logging to computer logging, one has to
> have similar CW and voice copying speeds and "blind typing" skills
> BEFORE the actual changeover takes place.
>
> I would like to continue this discussion so please respond directly at
> us5we@fairs.org
>
> 73,Vic
> Vic_Goncharsky US5WE/K1WE/S21ZM/SO9WE Local: 08:37 25 Jul 97
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/trlogfaq.html
> Submissions: trlog@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: trlog-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-trlog@contesting.com
> Feature Wishlist: http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/trlogfaq.html
Submissions: trlog@contesting.com
Administrative requests: trlog-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-trlog@contesting.com
Feature Wishlist: http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html
|