Another log bites the dust... part deux
WX9E at aol.com
WX9E at aol.com
Fri Apr 14 16:44:39 EDT 1995
Thanks to all the replies! It's good to know that I am not the only one who
has had logs mishandled or lost..... actually I guess it's not that good. I
have tried to reply to each person individually, but the replies keep
coming... probably up to about 30 by now.
Many of the replies have been from people offering advice as to what I can to
do make sure the logs get to where they're going. To those people, I ask
you to read my posting again. My problem has never been that the ARRL or CQ
has not gotten my logs, it is after they are received that the problem
occurrs. The two most recent confirmation cards that I have, for IARU and
SS... of which both logs were lost, were signed and dated by KB1LE.
Again.... the problem has not been that the logs never get there.
I am one who believes that stuff doesn't get "lost in the mail" very often,
not nearly as often as logs do. I have never had anything lost by the USPS.
Call me lucky if you will, but a return postcard on the inside of the
envelope to be signed and dated by the contest staff at CQ or the League has
always been sufficient in knowing that the logs have been received.
Certified mail with return receipt is fine, but in my in my mind overkill.
I would like some feedback from everyone, including people who haven't had
logs lost, on whether QST should publish mistakes immediately after mistakes
are brought to their attention. Should they do this or is it okay with you
if they wait 12 months until next years results come out? Should the
corrections be in small print or in a nice box? Where should they go in
QST.... ie the contest calander page....? I want to see my scores, along
with everyone elses, in the next issue of QST, or July's issue at the latest.
I do not want to wait a year.
How and why did I get my QST so quickly? I have no idea. I have had several
requests for the top ten listings..... if anyone wants them, let me know
privately. Being that most of the League guys will be at Dayton, maybe they
sent me mine early hoping that I'd be cooled off by the time it came around.
:-) <----- thing
See everyone in the Sultan's suite Thursday night
Paul WX9E
>From Matthew S. Trott" <0007288678 at mcimail.com Fri Apr 14 20:51:00 1995
From: Matthew S. Trott" <0007288678 at mcimail.com (Matthew S. Trott)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 95 14:51 EST
Subject: May QST arrival
Message-ID: <61950414195116/0007288678PJ2EM at MCIMAIL.COM>
I was also surprised to see that some of you are already enjoying your May QST.
After seeing that some had already received it, I walked out to the mail box
hoping I might have it today, but alas. What I did find was almost as good
though, I found that I had indeed won that most coveted award in all
contestdum--of course the award of which I speak is none other than FIRST
PLACE,SINGLE OPERATOR,LOW POWER,CW--MONTANA SECTION.
I hate to ruin the suspense for those of you who haven't received the mag yet,
but I won!!--Now if QST will just arrive I'll see how the rest of you did.
Oh, wise guy, why soitanly, I'm a victim of soikumstance. Nyuck, Nyuck.
aa7bg at mcimail.com
>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH at TGV.COM> Fri Apr 14 21:22:07 1995
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH at TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 13:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Another log bites the dust... part deux
Message-ID: <797890927.927182.GARLOUGH at TGV.COM>
I wasn't going to comment on any of these issues individually, but since
they were finally all raised in a single message, what the heck?
> Again.... the problem has not been that the logs never get there.
Correct. I don't ever recall a problem that invovlved USmailing my
log to the League. It's emailing logs to the League where I have had
difficulty. Sometimes I get an email acknowlegement, sometimes I don't,
but there seems to be no correlation between getting an ACK and the log
appearing/vanishing in/from the results.
> Certified mail with return receipt is fine, but in my in my mind overkill.
My understanding is that at the League, all the mail is opened and stamped
received with a date and routed within the organization, whereas at CQ (and
this may be different now) when a log arrives it is tossed into a box. When
the box is full, it's shipped to K3EST. This means that the reply card you
enclosed won't be returned to you until your envelope is opened, which could
be months after it arrived at CQ (and the deadline). If a paper ACK is
important to you, use a reply card with the ARRL and use USmail return receipt
with CQ. If you don't mind spending the money, use FedEx.
> I would like some feedback from everyone, including people who haven't had
> logs lost, on whether QST should publish mistakes immediately after mistakes
> are brought to their attention. Should they do this or is it okay with you
> if they wait 12 months until next years results come out?
Point #1:
The corrections should always be included with next year's results. This way
all the results for a given contest (like Sweepstakes) will always appear in
the same month of the year (like May). The advantage is that whenever someone
wants to compile historical information, they only have to look in the May
(or whatever) issues for the past n years to get *all* the results. By the
time the May issue hits the streets, it may be too late to meet June's
deadline, and now the results for a particular contest are going to be
scattered all about. This is bad.
Point #2:
The disadvantage is that the correction is not as "timely" if we have to wait
a year for it. But face it folks, contest results aren't timely in the first
place. Contests are already ancient history by the time their results are
published in magazines. After waiting 6-10 months for the results, I don't
feel that waiting an extra year to see the tiny correction box is much of a
loss, especially in view of Point #1.
Point #3:
Should the correction box be fancy rather than just a footnote? Sheesh,
I'm grateful to get a correction box at all. Period. Some contest
administrators seem to have the attitude that publishing a correction box
makes them look bad, or that it is viewed as an "admission of guilt" or that
it reflects poorly on themselves. This is very silly. There is no
face-saving at stake here; people just want to see the correct results
published, and are willing to wait an extra year for a make-good. To me
"quality" means correcting errors rather than trying to covering them up.
I regard the latter as a lame attempt at "appearance of quality."
--Trey, WN4KKN/6
>From David C. Patton" <mudcp3 at uxa.ecn.bgu.edu Fri Apr 14 22:24:56 1995
From: David C. Patton" <mudcp3 at uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (David C. Patton)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 16:24:56 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Dust biting logs
Message-ID: <199504142124.AA23484 at ecom3.ecn.bgu.edu>
Paul and Trey mention valid considerations to the lost log dilemma.
As many of you will recall, I have had plenty of my own experiences
with disappearing scores and badly busted scores (we lose points when
we bust a QSO, the magazines ought to lose something for busting our
score! :>). Trying to get these problems corrected has been a
trying episode at the least.
Once that log arrives at its destination there is little that can be
done to ensure an accurate place in the results. I know that K3EST
logs (manually) every log he receives. I am sure the ARRL does
something similar.
I propose a way to best track a log to the satisfaction of the
concerned entrant:
After the one month entry deadline has passed the ARRL should compile
an alphanumeric list of all entrants with their category of entry.
This list then would become available to anyone interested either
through a posting on CQ-CONTEST, in person, in mail, by FAX, however.
There should be a one week period after this list is available
wherein someone can discover his log missing, and contact ARRL to
arrange to supply such. THEN
the guys who are working up the contest results can use this list to
verify (against the draft final copy) that EVERY call that appeared
on the original verification list AGAIN appears in the final results.
All that could still go awry would be definitively beyond the
control of the entrant.
This system places the responsibility for each phase of the contest
reporting process squarely where it needs to go: On the entrant to
make sure his log is there, and to the reporter for making sure the
score appears in the results. If we have to forgive the entry
deadline for people who simply are too lazy to get their log in on
time (because they could claim the log was lost), so be it.
Maybe something like this is already ongoing. But how so many logs
can disappear is beyond me. Once again, much of the work is
volunteer and demanding at that. We owe societal thanks to the
people who work on contest results. But the sponsors DO need to show
they care, and as Trey says, the sponsors need to maintain a
professional appearance by owning up to mistakes and correcting them.
That makes us want to continue our subscriptions!! Someday I'll
subscribe to CQ again.
73, Dave Patton, WX3N/9
mudcp3 at uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
>From oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Fri Apr 14 23:35:59 1995
From: oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 17:35:59 -0500
Subject: May QST arrival
I found that I had indeed won that most coveted award in all
contestdum--of course the award of which I speak is none other
than FIRST PLACE,SINGLE OPERATOR,LOW POWER,CW--MONTANA SECTION.
aa7bg at mcimail.com
Ha, that's nothing. I got an unexpected certif for winning STX SS
CW multi-op for our club W5EHM. This is pretty funny. I made 400 Qs
as the only op and used packet near the end for some extra mults (no
sweep). My honesty in sending this in as multi-op is probably what
did it, there were probably no other entries in multi-op STX. But hey,
the certifs don't say that on them.
OK, so it might be a mistake cos someone else's log got lost, but that's
all part of contesting, right? So, er, how do you make Contesters' Hall
of Fame? Do I need to win something else?
Derek AA5BT, G3NMX
oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu
>From Jeffrey Clarke <jdclarke at freenet.columbus.oh.us> Fri Apr 14 23:53:00 1995
From: Jeffrey Clarke <jdclarke at freenet.columbus.oh.us> (Jeffrey Clarke)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 18:53:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Another log bites the dust... part deux
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9504141853.A19982-d100000 at acme>
On Fri, 14 Apr 1995 WX9E at aol.com wrote:
> Thanks to all the replies! It's good to know that I am not the only one who
> has had logs mishandled or lost..... actually I guess it's not that good. I
> have tried to reply to each person individually, but the replies keep
> coming... probably up to about 30 by now.
>
> Many of the replies have been from people offering advice as to what I can to
> do make sure the logs get to where they're going. To those people, I ask
> you to read my posting again. My problem has never been that the ARRL or CQ
> has not gotten my logs, it is after they are received that the problem
> occurrs. The two most recent confirmation cards that I have, for IARU and
> SS... of which both logs were lost, were signed and dated by KB1LE.
> Again.... the problem has not been that the logs never get there.
>
> I am one who believes that stuff doesn't get "lost in the mail" very often,
> not nearly as often as logs do. I have never had anything lost by the USPS.
> Call me lucky if you will, but a return postcard on the inside of the
> envelope to be signed and dated by the contest staff at CQ or the League has
> always been sufficient in knowing that the logs have been received.
> Certified mail with return receipt is fine, but in my in my mind overkill.
>
>
> I would like some feedback from everyone, including people who haven't had
> logs lost, on whether QST should publish mistakes immediately after mistakes
> are brought to their attention. Should they do this or is it okay with you
> if they wait 12 months until next years results come out? Should the
> corrections be in small print or in a nice box? Where should they go in
> QST.... ie the contest calander page....? I want to see my scores, along
> with everyone elses, in the next issue of QST, or July's issue at the latest.
> I do not want to wait a year.
>
> How and why did I get my QST so quickly? I have no idea. I have had several
> requests for the top ten listings..... if anyone wants them, let me know
> privately. Being that most of the League guys will be at Dayton, maybe they
> sent me mine early hoping that I'd be cooled off by the time it came around.
>
> :-) <----- thing
>
> See everyone in the Sultan's suite Thursday night
>
> Paul WX9E
Paul,
sri about your problems with logs being lost by the
ARRL. I don't buy the fact that logs are getting lost... I think
it's just a screw up on their part after they getting the logs
in my opinon. I have never had my logs lost but I have had
other problems with the contest desk and the current people that
run it in the past.
I the late 1980's and friend of mine and myself did
single band efforts from a certain station in ARRL DX phone.
when the results came out they had combined both our scores
into one entry. When questioned about this their reply was "
well... you can't have 2 entries from one station and use the
same call call in both entries". At that time there was nothing
in the rules that said you could't do this !!! In fact if you
checked out the results from a few years earlier there is a
picture in QST for ARRL DX of K3LR and K8CX who both operated
as K3LR in ARRL DX phone... and the caption under the picture
says this !!!!! It's funny that the the year after this happened
the rules mysteriously changed for the next running of the contest
that you can't run from one station during single bands and using
the same call.
Also check out the comments that they made about our
contest club ( Mad River ) in the 1993 ARRL dx Contest writeup
( October 1993 QST p. 107 > It just proves that the people that
run the contest desk at ARRL are a bunch of boneheads!!!!
CU in Dayton OM Jeff
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list