[CQ-Contest] Re: CQ WW CW 1997 results...some analyse

i4jmy at migate.n8it.AMPR.ORG i4jmy at migate.n8it.AMPR.ORG
Mon Nov 2 14:08:48 EST 1998

    If I'm not wrong, a certain mistakes percentage doesn't bring any
  more to any disqualification, in CQWW. It was before the accurate log
  checking that the 3% rule existed and could mean that.
    Anyway, if a strict WWDX log cheching (started in 93 I think it was)
  brought to abolish the 3% errors as the (possible) disqualification
  edge in favour of symple score penaltyes, the WWDX records before
  93 are then non homogeneous in "size" with the current ones because
  they weren't so much penalty affected like it's now.

    Very strange that noone noticed it yet !

    A hugely reducted log is the result of quite a lot of original
  mistakes, and in my eyes that looks very much doubtfully qualifying a
  top operator.

    Over a certain reduction limit, 30 % for istance, a log might
  become a check log (instead of beeing awarded) or at least the
  penalty should be progressively applied (not linearly like it's now)
  becoming exponentially heavier as much as the mistakes increase.

    This could be much more satisfactory than the CQWW SSB honor roll
  list, a very good idea anyway, published in last September CQ-CONTEST.

    Vy 73,

    Mauri I4JMY (one of IR4T)

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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list