[CQ-Contest] Public Reporting of UBN data

[Tom Hammond]

K5NA wrote:

>Some examples would be NH7As problem of having his CQs answered by people
>that supposeably didn't log him. It is clear that the calling station got
>the call wrong or was responding to an incorrect packet spot. The checker
>needs to look at the OTHER log to see what was logged before blame is
>assessed.

Another case in point...

  While at V31TP for the ARRL DX CW a few weeks back, we (WC0W and I)
  found ourselves working what we 'thought' were dupe callers (fellas
  who we had in our log but were (still) calling us for a QSO.

  When informed that they were 'dupes' we received several (though not
  many) responses of "not in my log!", so we worked 'em again and took
  em as a dupe in our log... but THEY got the credit for the QSO anyway.
  At least they got the credit IF, in fact, we weren't in their log
  previously.

This serves to point up a problem I see with CW stations operating
right on top of each other, as must be done in a big CW contest.  You
may hear a calling station, 'appear' to work him, only to find out,
MANY QSO's later, that he actually worked the guy who was 100 Hz or
so away and the timing of your responses perfectly coincided with those
of the other DX station, so you never knew you didn't work the stateside
station.

I know, it's a fact of life.  And there's little way to combat the
problem... OTHER than for stations to do a better job of IDing when
they work a station.  And yes, I'm aware that superfluous IDing just
wastes time, but it can cost QSO's, and I guess, in some instances
it can cost mults as well.

73 - Tom Hammond   N0SS/V31TH  op. at V31TP


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