[CQ-Contest] Why CQWW scores "change" PART II

DougKR2Q at aol.com DougKR2Q at aol.com
Sat Nov 7 06:57:59 EST 1998

In a message dated 11/05/98 11:58:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aa4ga at contesting.com writes:

Sorry for the long 'COPY' below, but it is all relevant.  I replied PRIVATELY
to this [round two] scenario, but I since it is now PUBLIC, I guess my answer
should go public as well.  Please see my comments at the END (below).  And as
usual, the following comments are MY OWN are NOT to be considered as an
official reply on behalf of the CQWWCC.  I am speaking for myself.   Tnx...de
Doug KR2Q

<< > > If so, what if XX9XX was running a pileup, answered and worked W3BG,
 > > but W3BGN *thought* he was the one being worked and logged the Q.
 > > W3BG needed XX9XX for a new one and that is the only QSO he
 > > worked...he even has a QSL card to prove it.  If, as you say, the
 > > QSO was removed from XX9XX's log and left in W3BGN's log, the wrong
 > > station is being penalized, no?
 > This is a good argument for removing the QSO from both logs, in my
 > opinion.  That is why we went to this in the Internet Sprint.  It
 > puts responsbility for getting information exchanged correctly 
 > upon both stations.
 In this example, W3BG and XX9XX have correctly exchanged
 information...and have QSL cards to prove it.  W3BG is a DXer, worked
 one Q for a new country and didn't send in his log.  Why should XX9XX
 lose a QSO?  
 W3BGN however didn't really work the guy but he doesn't lose the Q in
 Doug's example (at least the way I understand it).  So 'XX is wrongly
 penalized for making a good Q and 'BGN is wrongly rewarded for
 botching one.  The error is compounded by overly aggressive log
 Unique does not equal bad.  Busted call does equal bad. >>

***** [from KR2Q]:  This last statement is absolutely correct.  I did reply
that if I were the log checker in the above scenario (and I am a log checker),
that I would make every effort to confirm that W3BG did NOT make the qso.  If
W3BG were active in contest at all, I would look in the W3BG contest log for
the matching data.  If W3BG matched, then BGN would "lose."  If, however, W3BG
did NOT submit a log, I would contact W3BG and ASK HIM!  This is NOT a joke.
I ROUTINELY do this and I especially do it with overseas qso's and I get
OUTSTANDING results....sometimes I even get the non-entrant to send in his
log, even if just 5 qso's!  I would NEVER, and have never,  "willy-nilly"
deduct a qso from log.

I have been checking logs for nearly 2 decades now...and SERIOUSLY checking
them.  Most of you have no idea of the amount of effort it takes to do
this....it is HUGE.  Log checkers are serious contesters themselves...this
contest MEANS SOMETHING to all of us checkers, so we are NOT going to make
random decisions that we would NOT want to be done to our own logs.  Active
contesters make the best log checkers because we are emotionally "in your
shoes" too.

By the way, last year I found a "unqiue" in a log which I just KNEW was a
busted qso.  I did NOT just remove it.  I contacted one of our overseas CQWWCC
members and asked to have a direct inquiry made.  Guess what....it was a REAL
unique...this guy made just ONE qso in the whole contest.  And I can also tell
you that the log I did this to was NOT even a TOP TEN in his category log.  I
can also tell you that this was the FIRST TIME in over 7 years that this
happened (finding a REAL and VERIFIED unique).  Totally unqiue calls (not
U+1's) are overwhelmingly BUSTED calls.  There have been many years in which
HUNDREDS of uniques have been checked and ALL of them PROVED to be wrong.

In the case of W3BG and W3BGN (sorry I picked these two well known
calls...nothing intentional there), a "double" qso of the type first mentioned
above where W3BG and W3BGN both log the guy at the same time has happened (in
MY log checking experience) ONCE!  I must tell you, that I often just "feel in
my gut" that I know what is happening...both on adjacent frequencies and both
"working" the same guys, but I am (almost) always wrong....as I just said...I
found it ONCE.  So the scenario painted above, while inspiring, for all
practical purposes, simply does not happen (<<<1%).

FINALLY, the CQWWCC log checking is NOT 100.00% accurate...to so state would
be a misrepresentation of the truth...and we acknowledge this fact.  If anyone
can CONFIRM the an error was made, it has ALWAYS been the CQWW policy to make
the correction.  But I do feel that it is the best checked large scale,
international contest there is...heads and shoulders above everything else.

de Doug KR2Q

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