[CQ-Contest] Hand vs Computer - Some analysis

[Vic_Goncharsky]

Dear fellow contesters!
After reading most of the recent discussion regarding the paper vs computer
logging I did not find any messagees containing serious attempts to
analyze this dilemma that we are facing.

I have been studying this problem since getting my first XT in 1990
and want to share the conclusions with the skilllful contesting
audience.

The best epigraph I was able to find for this discussion are the words
from Kenny Rogers' "The Gambler" song:

"If you gonna play, boy, you have to do it RIGHT".
 *************************************************

Therefore, arguments like: "I can log with just two fingers", or: "My scores
went down with computer logging but I am happy, etc" aren't even worth
considering. One can type with single finger, nose, pencil, "SOMETHING ELSE"
but these methods are, a priori, WRONG and lead to nowhere.

Let's start with CW contests where analysys is quite simple. As a starting
point I'll introduce some basics.

Firstly - For decades there have been 2 (T W O) different categories in
high-speed CW competitions(I was both participant and referee for the last
25 years):
1.Hand copy
2.Typewriter copy

Average top scores were 20 - 25% in favor of the Typewriter copy.
None of the participants shared both methods equally successful.
TYPE-COPYISTS' scores in hand copying were far behind their counterparts
from group 1. HAND-COPYISTS could barely type either.

This shows, quite clearly, the following:

a. Ideally, the keyboard copying speed could increase about 20 percent
   compared to the hand logging.
b. One faces the problem of necessity to  re-train oneself to the completly
   different skill if decision to switch to the computer logging has been
   made.
b. The re-training process will be time-consuming and age-dependent if equal
   or better results have to be acheived.
c. Together with copying skills one has to change the OPERATING skills as well,
   since there is no left or right (ie free from copying and paddling) hand
   avaliable to tune the RIT, switch bands,memories, RF/AF gain, etc anymore.
d. Both hands are to be "chained" to the QWERTY keyboard in a proper way, since
   only automatic "blind typing" will give one a chance to have the operating
   convenience and speed compared to the hand-logging scheme.

TEST No 1.
Install the latest version of "SM" software. Try to copy the highest possible
speed by hand, say, letters - 25 to 30 wpm. If you can do this error-free
you're in good shape. Now try to copy the same speed on keyboard. If, again,
you're doing this error-free your chances to be in Top-Ten are quite high,
if NOT you'll know what I feel every time I am failing to pass this test...hi

TEST No 2.
Measure and compare the time-delay between your response to one's call
with manual and computer logging. Ideally it must not exceed :

- for KEYBOARD: time to type the last letter of his call and ENTER (for TR)
or GreyPlus for CT;

- for MANUAL LOGGING : * no delay *
Why? Because with manual logging you have to remember the call and start to
respond immediately after hearing the last letter and log the
QSO while getting his response. Unfortunately this method DOES NOT work
with computer logging (!!!!!!!) because the response delay in the BEST
case equals the duration of the calling-station's call.
Painful experience......

The problem described in TEST No 2 gives the answer to the question "Why one is
calling CQ on default 35 wpm but responds to those calling on 20 wpm after some
delay?"  -  because he/she does not posess the NECESSARY typewriter copying
and computer logging skills.

Secondly - comuter logging contains another problem /skill to be learned/
           --- > CONTROL CHARACTERS.

The DupeSheet writing/checking skill, which is somewhat functionally similar,
is absolutely useless in this case. The only solution to learn how to use these
CTRL-_'s and ALT-_'s AUTOMATICALLY (!!!!!) would have been the good SIMULATOR
software. At this time I am not aware of any SIMULATOR both for CT and TR that
really simulates and TEACHES how to use all possibilities of these nice
commercial products including, especially, both S&P and CQ modes, multiplier
checks, editing fields and so on.

Contest operation is a Battle-field and NOT a Training-ground. One must fight
and be well prepared to do this long before touching the first F1.

Thirdly - another factor that influences the hand vs computer logging speed
          ratio is the logging software itself. In other words, the question
          is how close computer logging can approach the hand logging QSO
          rate for someone who's able to handle any pile-up both on SSB and CW
          and and was taught to do this by hand decade or so ago.

I had no chance to try NA, so only CT and TR will be analized.

Potentially, TR is faster and more convenient because of the less keystrokes
per QSO, extensive use of the ENTER key and provisions to pick up tail-enders.
Unfortunately all these advantages are "effectively killed" by the nightmare
of the Alt-E command. This is, for me at least, the weakest part of the
software that seriously degrades it's overall performance.

CT, on the other hand, does the editing in an elegant way, resulting in much
less possibility to miss the zone or country multiplier. But again this advan-
tage is "blocked" by things like: numeric keypad keys use, necessity to
push more different keys to log the QSO and no tail-end options.

SSB contests.
--------------
These require the AUTOMATIC keyboard copy of the different type of
information i.e. letters and figures in English spelled by voice.
Where and how can one learn such a skill? If he/she lives in the English
speaking country, secretary workshop would be a good approximation.
If one's living somewhere else he's in trouble. The worst cases are
countries using, other then QWERTY, keyboard standarts. The author of this
opus represents such a country on the air for the last 30 years.
I think a good training tool would have been a voice version of the
"Super Morse" software on a CD-ROM adopted, especially, for heavy
DX-pedition and contest situations. If such commercial product exists
I'll purchase it immediately.
Summary.
--------
1.It is still not clear if existing computer contest logging is superior
to hand-logging based on QSO per hour criterium.
2.The existing contest logging software packages have to be upgraded to
allow using the best hand-logging tricks like: multiple tail-ending or
partial calls scooping( technique to write down parts of calls heard in
pile-up to work them aftrwards in a raw) etc.
3.Editing the callsign field of any logged qso must lead to immediate
corresponding change of all qso parameters i.e. multiplier(s) and points
(CT style) and be as easy as possible.
4.In order to switch from hand logging to computer logging, one has to
have similar CW and voice copying speeds and "blind typing" skills
BEFORE the actual changeover takes place.

I would like to continue this discussion so please respond directly at
us5we at fairs.org

73,Vic
Vic_Goncharsky US5WE/K1WE/S21ZM/SO9WE     Local: 08:24             25 Jul 97


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com