On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 09:15:00AM -0400, Ev Tupis (W2EV) wrote:
> I've been spending some time actually learning about Cabrillo's format and
> purpose. I have to tell you...if anyone takes the time to do this that it is
> obvious that a ton of work went into making it well formatted as a machine
> decodable and auditable system. Kudos to the individual or team that put it
> together!
>
> As technically good as it is, there are areas in it's "human interface" that
> could still use some work. By "human interface", I mean, "Humans expect one
> thing, while the system does something else".
>
> One example is the omission of the ability to log 0-point QSO's (dupes),
> especially important to do when so many people paper-log w/o dupe sheets,
> etc.
> Another is the need to have the log in chronological order (a difficult task
> for
> paper loggers with multiple bands, each with their own log).
>
> My question is this... is there any "standing" committee that is working on
> the
> system to allow it to mature further or has it "frozen" for the forseeable
> future?
Well, I am glad to see you have been looking at it.
The issue about zero points QSOs has been thoroughly debated over the years and
I think that it has stood the test of time.
The winning arguement goes something like this:
1. If the QSO took place - it should be in the log.
2. If it did not take place, it should not be in the log.
There really isn't any reason to create a gray category where the QSO sort
took place, but really didn't.
This has required some new thinking with respect to the log checking process.
But so far, that hasn't been a show stopper.
Simply put, having some consistency in the "summary sheet" section of the
"log" has enabled the log checking, scoring and reporting processes to be
much more consistent and accurate than it ever was when humans were reading
summary sheets and manually sorting logs.
Tree
|