On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 05:28:20PM -0400, Ev Tupis (W2EV) wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback on the two points I asked about:
> o 0-point QSO's
> o Chronological Log entries
>
> Lee, Michael and Tree provided the clarification that I was looking for. As
> thought, I simply misinterpreted the spec. The spec is fine on both counts.
>
> Here's what I saw:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2.4 There is no way to indicate duplicate QSOs in Cabrillo. Why not?
>
> Duplicate QSOs will be assigned a value of zero points automatically
> as part of the log checking procedure.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I took that to mean that one couldn't enter a second QSO to the same station
> on
> the same band in the same grid. That is apparently not the case. You
> can...it
> is simply treated correctly at the ARRL end.
Yes. The goal of the log checking software is "do the right thing". Most
people who haven't been involved in the programming of the software find it
hard to believe that the programmer could have thought of their special
scenario... but we have probably seen it 1000 times.
One of the keys was convincing everyone that there is no longer any reason
for a dupe penalty. This has been sucessfully done. Dupes are simply
removed.
For VHF contests, a dupesheeet entry simply consists of the callsign and
the grid. That way, a 2nd QSO with the station in the same grid is a dupe
and if he moved to another grid, it isn't.
> As for how the idea that the QSO's must appear in chronological order in the
> Cabrillo file...I have no clue where I got that idea. I can't find anything
> in
> the spec to lead me to that belief now.
It certainly is a nice to have. Problem logs that end up being looked at by
a human are certainly easier to understand if the QSOs are in order. For
some categories that have either time restrictions or band change limits,
it really probably is a requirement - otherwise, the software would get
really confused.
Tree
|