Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW160 Rebuttal

["David Thompson" <thompson@mindspring.com>]

The CQ 160 Contests are checked very closely.  Much more so now than before
e-logs.

All e-logs are put in cabrillo format if not sent that way originally.
Since so many try to jomebrew a cabrillo log or run the log thru an editor I
have to run all 2200 (2005 numbers) thru a dry run just to assure the log is
clean and in good format.

All logs are run through the WT4I master call sign data base program
building a master file for both  CW or SSB.  Then all logs are run through
the cross check master and I find this is far better than the old hand cross
check.  VU2BGS did submit a log with 15 valid contacts.  His call is near
the top of the list for NIL with 51 entries.  In fact many complain that
their score was reduced too much.  This is because of the accuracy of the
cross checker.

The WT4I log checker indicates where a busted call (thus now a NIL) is
different from a unique.  Since the average number of uniques is about 1% a
check is placed on all logs reaching 3% uniques.  Above 7% uniques can mean
disqualification.  The exception report allows the director to review these
logs and make decisions just as we did 15 years ago.  I have continued
N4IN's tradition of DQing stations in private (the score just disappear) and
have done so 9 times since 1992.  I have written over 50 warning letters and
I know many on the cq-contest reflector have gotten them.  I do point out
bad practice in print and know its being read as several have sent me
letters in protest..

The contest has grown in just the past several years from 900 logs to over
2200  logs received.  Do bad logs get rough...probably but I keep setting
more traps for the exception report to look at each year.

The idea the contest logs are not checked is just no true.

Dave K4JRB   CQ 160 Contests Director


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest