[CCF] SAC CW 2012 RESULTS PUBLISHED

[Ilkka Korpela]

Hi

   Congrts OH6KZP et al.

   Timo wrote

"Vaikka vietin koko kontestin taajuuksilla 7013 ja 7014 kHz, olen
tarkistusohjelman mielestä workkinut kaksi kusoa väärällä bandilla. Saavutus
sekin :)"

   General, not in any way Timo or SAC-related thoughts from this:

   This could be another fine side of RBN? If by chance a RBN's receiver
   makes a mistake in copying the callsign, and that happens on a wrong
   freq., or the  station that we work, has RF in the radio control cable
   and the freq. is logged wrong in his log (and log-database).

   Who do we trust?

   I encourage to trust your VFO, and the finger on it, and the signals
   that you hear, just once, as they happen, not signals from a digital
   recording afterwards or elsewhere.

   In SAC 2011, I analyzed some of the below-3510-stuff, from a probabilistic
   viewpoint. You can't get the probabilities to 100%, to be sure in the
   score reductions. This reminds me of my old friend, who always does well in
   these 'log-purity' tests (e.g. UBN by CQ Magazine). He and some  
others record
   the contest audio  and have successfully adjusted their UBN thru
   correspondence with the  organizer. This shows how much potential there is
   even in "post-contest whining". There should of course be none.

   The contest rules usually state something like "The decisions by the
   committee are final and by submitting a log you comply to this". Yet,
   I recall (observing) a massive wave of sweet talk and persuasion following
   the 3510-talk last year. I just hope 2012 none of that was around!

   However, we oftentimes see the results redone. Why? Well, they are made with
   computer software. Computers are excellent in making mistakes in vast
   amounts if said to do so. It is not a rewarding task to do contesting
   software as we read from fin-ham list the other day by OH6KVU. If a PC
   is the central tool of a contester (and it really is), shouldn't all
   contesters be in full control of theirs? N1MM-style, with source code
   available  for your own  adjustments. Think about this.

   => Another good reason to strive for harmonization in contest rules,
   to enable easy-to-maintain software for organizers as well. Now it is
   a jungle - you have 50+ software options for the contester and basically
   none for the organizers. I see great potential in this - and the SAC
   way of doing things thru the SACTEST.NET is great. I cannot imagine how
   much hours some individuals are putting into this, but I hope to appreciate
   it enough. And I hope SACTEST.NET could be exported to help other organizers
   as well, via IARU?. Well done there in SM and in SAC cc! You are showing the
   way.


ilkka









-- 
Ilkka Korpela
http://www.helsinki.fi/~korpela