[CQ-Contest] SS Summary Comments VE4GV de K2XR

Dave Franks k2xr at zajil.net
Sun Apr 25 20:03:24 EDT 1999

VE4GV said in the CQ-Contest reflector:

>Observation #2
>11 of the 50 errors in other peoples logs were miscopies of my
>Ck year. They ALL said it was 67 rather than the correct 72. This
>is very suspicious. While my pronunciation may have a bit of a
>----------------------Howz it goin , eh ?--------------------------------
>"Lake Winnipeg" swing ( that's for all you old cw guys who know
>what a Lake Erie swing is) I can't see how anyone could confuse
>Seven Toooooo with Six Seven.  Sounds like some database
>corruption to me. Somebody's using a program that at one
>time listed me as ck 67. 11 out of 50 is just too high a percentage
>to be anything else. Especially when the rest of the exchange is o.k.
>How do we feel about programs that allow for insertion of
>last year's pwr/check/section ? Is that acceptable?

I am not in favor of databases to insert any value into the log for you. I
have mixed feelings about using it for super check partial, but that is
another thread.  I was one of the 11 that got nailed for having you as check
67 instead of 72. I asssure you that I was not using any form of database
for either super checking or for report insertion.. so scratch that idea.
    I do find it curious that everyone made the same mistake. Though the log
here was not terribly accurate, 9.8 %, there were a number of factors
involved.  It was a multi op effort,one of the ops had not done an SS in 20
years or so (me), one op was doing their first SS ever..  so it was a
learning experience for sure. If you can work out another reason for the
similarity of errors on your exchange, I would love to hear it, because this
in particular cost me the first clean sweep ever in an SS event.

Which brings a question to mind for me.   This is the first time I have seen
a UBN report for a log I have submitted. I am grateful for the insight it
has provided into the source of error at our station. We will be much more
careful next time around.  There are two questions that I would raise,
either to Tree or to the group at large.

1) One reason I am glad to see closer checking is due to it's ability to
reduce the 'fudge factor' people inventing callsigns they worked.  This was
in particular a problem with ARRL contests in the past, yet I note that
uniques are not removed from the score.  I imagine this would present a
large problem anyway, but my question is: at what threshold do the log
checkers, based on % uniques decide that the log needs closer investigation

2) I understand the loss of points for a busted exchange, but nukeing the
qso may not always be the desired effect.

QSO #411 VE4GV : A 67 Mb should be A 72 Mb

>or worse............ I could be VE4VV !!! ( Ha ! Gotcha Derrick ! )

QSO #667 VE4VV : Q 67 Mb should be Q 73 Mb

Heh heh, guess we bombed on both VE4 QSO's... now I can understand that I
get 0
points for these qso's, but I have trouble swallowing the process telling me
I didn't work a VE4 ...
clean sweep or not !

  Comments ?

>My hats off to N6TR and all responsible for this report. What a
>bang up job !! I think I learned something, humbling as it
>may be. And THAT'S why I love to contest !! Especially SS.

Ditto, and I love all of them !

      Dave  K2XR at ZAJIL.NET   / 7Z2AB

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